Proof of 'God particle' found

Pushtrak · 07-07-2012 11:40pm

philologos, did you get around to watching that video I posted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E

shizz · 07-07-2012 11:45pm

philologos wrote: »

At the start of this thread:

There's plenty more posts in between that seem to be implying such as well. The name 'God particle' isn't all that helpful perhaps

I'm pretty sure that comment wasn't serious. And if it was it certainly doesn't represent the scientific community or any rational person who is willing to learn about the Higgs.

Same can't be said for you religious colleagues

Yes the name God particle is causing all this sort of talk anyway. Extremely unfortunate phrase which no one apart from the publishers wanted.

delad · 07-07-2012 11:46pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I don't "believe" in multiverses, the physics show it to be a possibility.
Science has nothing to with "belief" it is about evidence, what one believes is irrelevant what one observes is what matters.

Yes I agree, therefore you shouldn't come out with statements like:
"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk".

It makes it sound like you are stating a fact.

prinz · 07-07-2012 11:48pm

shizz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that comment wasn't serious. And if it was it certainly doesn't represent the scientific community or any rational person who is willing to learn about the Higgs. Same can't be said for you religious colleagues .

LOL, your rebuttal to a post on boards is to link to a load of twitter comments? Do they represent the entire religious community now? How do you know those comments are serious?

You don't think tweets such as

Atheists don't believe in the God Particle.

Might not be serious?

Pushtrak · 07-07-2012 11:49pm

delad wrote: »

Yes I agree, therefore you shouldn't come out with statements like "Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk".

It makes it sound like you are stating a fact.

I have provided a video to back up the claim that time began at the big bang. I have provided a written source showing this too. You either

A) Accept the big bang.

Reject the big bang.

If A) then by proxy you accept that time started 13.7 billion years ago. It is part of the big bang model. I've already sourced this twice now.

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_bigbang.html

In the Beginning

The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything. No other model can predict as much with as high accuracy as the Big Bang model can.

A common question that people ask is "What happened before the Big Bang?" The phrase "in the beginning" is used here to refer to the birth of our universe with the Big Bang. In the creation of the universe, everything was compressed into an infinitesimally small point in which all physical laws that we know of do not apply. No information from any "previous" stuff could have remained intact. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is considered thebeginning of everything, for we can never know if there was anything before it.

I will not source it again.

Cú Giobach · 07-07-2012 11:51pm

philologos wrote: »

Cú Giobach - If you're going to claim that peoples beliefs are stupid, you should be willing to give a good and clear reason as to why they are stupid. That's a reasonable request.

A person believing something does not make it true, logical, intelligent etc.......What gives an idea validity is its rationality, magic is not rational, is not how things work and is therefore silly to believe in as an explanation for how "things" came about.

In particular you'd also have to explain how quantum mechanics nullifies the possibility of divine creation.

No I don't because I never said it does, it only shows gods are not necessary.
As I said earlier I'm not going to share with you my (limited) knowledge of QM, it is simply too difficult, you would have to start learning a bit about it yourself, it would be good for you to do because an argument from a position of knowledge is waaay better than one from ignorance.

As I have said to you numerous times (no reply ever gotten on it) your god has been pushed further and further back over the centuries, this shows no sign of stopping.
Once we detect gravity waves he could be pushed back again way beyond the BB.

Cú Giobach · 07-07-2012 11:55pm

delad wrote: »

Yes I agree, therefore you shouldn't come out with statements like:
"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk".

It makes it sound like you are stating a fact.

I was stating a proven observation, because the evidence shows it.
It has been proven numerous times since Einstein first came out with it, Time is not fixed.

We live in what is now called space-time, they are intrinsically linked, no space without time, no time without space.

shizz · 08-07-2012 12:08am

prinz wrote: »

shizz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that comment wasn't serious. And if it was it certainly doesn't represent the scientific community or any rational person who is willing to learn about the Higgs. Same can't be said for you religious colleagues .

LOL, your rebuttal to a post on boards is to link to a load of twitter comments? Do they represent the entire religious community now? How do you know those comments are serious?

You don't think tweets such as

Atheists don't believe in the God Particle.

Might not be serious?

Oh without a doubt some of them aren't serious, but the majority are. If you look earlier on in the feed they are majoritly serious.

My point was that there are far more religious folk claiming it proves god than ppl saying it proves god doesn't exist.

A Dub in Glasgo · 08-07-2012 12:10am

It is great that they have discovered the evidence

prinz · 08-07-2012 12:10am

shizz wrote: »

My point was that there are far more religious folk claiming it proves god than ppl saying it proves god doesn't exist.

Did you count all the tweets or what?

delad · 08-07-2012 12:17am

Pushtrak wrote: »

I have provided a video to back up the claim that time began at the big bang. I have provided a written source showing this too. You either

A) Accept the big bang.
Reject the big bang.

I accept the big bang, I'v never denied that.

delad · 08-07-2012 12:23am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I was stating a proven observation, because the evidence shows it.
It has been proven numerous times since Einstein first came out with it, Time is not fixed.

We live in what is now called space-time, they are intrinsically linked, no space without time, no time without space.

The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

ArtSmart · 08-07-2012 12:30am

delad wrote: »

I accept the big bang, I'v never denied that.

it's the big bang theory, and yes I accept it is pretty funny, and yes Penny is hot.

Pushtrak · 08-07-2012 12:39am

delad wrote: »

A The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

B"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

What is the relation between A and B? The multiverse isn't a prerequisite when talking about the big bang. One does not need to have any position on the multiverse for the purpose of this discussion.

Cú Giobach · 08-07-2012 12:50am

delad wrote: »

The point I'm making is that if you don't know if the multiverse exists then you can't come out with the statements:

"Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk"

Outside our space-time there is no space or time, that is why we call this space-time.
Time ends (begins to those not comfortable with cosmology) at the big bang you have been given the reason why. Even if we don't know what is beyond the BB we know something that isn't, and that is space and time as we know it here.

CodyJarrett · 08-07-2012 2:07am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pa34orcwwA

shizz · 08-07-2012 7:23am

prinz wrote: »

shizz wrote: »

My point was that there are far more religious folk claiming it proves god than ppl saying it proves god doesn't exist.

Did you count all the tweets or what?

Of course I didn't. You don't need to to see who the majority lies with.

Pedant · 08-07-2012 7:45pm

philologos wrote: »

The point is that given the finite nature of the universe. It is entirely reasonable that there was an external intelligent cause which brought it into being.

The Universe is only finite with respect to how one defines limits.

The Universe is infinite. Even when all matter has decayed back into subatomic particles, gamma-rays and the temperature of the universe reaches absolute zero, it's not exactly the end of reality. Reality will still continue one for infinity even when there is only nothingness and blackness. For something to be ended is entirely subjective. Similarly, the fact that there was a Big Bang that brought everything we see into being doesn't mean that that was the beginning of the Universe.

cartell_best · 08-07-2012 8:56pm

Intelligent design!

--LOS-- · 08-07-2012 9:33pm

the people of after hours discussing this makes me cringe

here's a nice tune though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aU-wFSqt0

Pushtrak · 09-07-2012 1:21am

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/beyond-the-higgs-boson-the-large-hadron-collider-can-make-the-future-critical-for-physics-research/articleshow/14755405.cms

"If the Higgs boson had turned out to be more massive than 135 giga electron volts (GeV), some of my work on supersymmetry would have had to be abandoned," says Vempati. Some parts of supersymmetry theory - called minimal models - would not hold if the particle was heavier than 135 GeV. Fortunately for Vempati, and hundreds of other physicists who have staked their careers on supersymmetry, the Higgs particle seems to have a mass of 125 GeV.

Supersymmetry, which goes by the name of SUSY, is now a critical part of theoretical physics. It resolves many inconsistencies in other theories and holds them together in a neat and beautiful mathematical framework. Yet SUSY has no experimental evidence so far.

Physicists were hoping that the LHC would throw up particles that would validate supersymmetry, but it hasn't happened so far. "Supersymmetry is already in trouble," says Vivek Sharma, professor of physics at the University of California in San Diego and a key experimentalist at LHC. Over the next several years, the LHC would rigorously test several theories of physics, providing many anxious moments to thousands of theoretical physicists around the world.

Proof of 'God particle' found

Comments