Proof of 'God particle' found

Mance Rayder

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why such hype about a discovery that has not been made ? Guess they have to justify the billions spent with a big press conference.

They have discovered that they may discover something. Actually they are making progress, and the work is worthwhile, but calling something a "God" particle gets everyone's knickers in a twist.

Pudsy33

Ignore, misquotation.

Ciaran0

granturismo wrote: »

Yes sir, a theory is:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

eg
Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. Prove it now sir.
Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.
The THEORY of the Big Bang. Prove it now sir.

Gravity is just a theory....

dlofnep

Pudsy33 wrote: »

You quoted the article as saying the Higgs Bosson "almost certainly does exist" No one can make a similar claim about god.

Sure they can. God almost certainly does not exist. Next.

ScumLord

Leftist wrote: »

bit of an ungrateful attitude that.

what if you created concious life in some form and it cursed you because it was fat or had a sore leg? not your fault is it.

Delighted they found God tbh. Can't see the downside.

They didn't find god at all, they found evidence of a particular particle. If I was god and created the universe and gave animals a distinct set of instincts designed to help them survive then decided to make one animal ignore all those instincts for my own amusement and also made them jump through all sorts of hoops to appease my own ego then filled them up with all sorts of contradictory ideals I wouldn't be at all surprised if their reaction towards me wasn't all that favourable, The holy gods are trolls, nothing more.

granturismo wrote: »

eg
Einstein's THEORY of Relativity. Prove it now sir.
Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.
The THEORY of the Big Bang. Prove it now sir.

Your always going to have problems with science if you ignore the work of the people in those fields for lay peoples attempt at an explanation. For the theory of relativity you should read the works of Albert Einstein. For the theory of evolution there a guy called Charles Darwin that you should look into. Oh look you jad the answers in your post all along.

Phill Ewinn

LordSmeg wrote: »

Possibly found evidence to back up a scientific model = blind faith now ?

Listen to yourself there.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

No, if you cannot understand the math the faith is in those who do and how they are interpreting the results of their experiments.

Which are open to scrutiny from everyone else in the academic world and may be proven to be false is and when better evidence comes to light to suggest that. To even get to the point of being taken seriously you need evidence to suggest you may be on to something. Its not plucked out of thin air and proposed as truth. Its logical conclusions from observable phenomena which all go towards backing up a theory.

DB21

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. SO F**KING WRONG.

There being actual proof, which I'm sure could be dumbed down for the religious numbskulls =/= blind faith.

Pudsy33

Mance Rayder wrote: »

I love science, I am all for scientific method. I just don't like militant atheists (Not saying your one of them, just in general;)) who jump on threads just because it has the word God in the title.

It is possible to be have a spiritual side and be scientific. They are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I'd agree with most of that. There is no need for god to be discussed in this thread whatsoever.

And thats a very strong point. Although its worth mentioning one can be spiritual without belief in god

Duggys Housemate

I, for one, hope the theory of gravity is never refuted.

dlofnep

granturismo wrote: »

Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Prove it now sir.

What part of the theory of evolution by natural selection do you dispute? Evolution is already a proven fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection best explains that fact.

Scioch

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Listen to yourself there.

Thats about the level of argument I expected alright.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

No, if you cannot understand the math the faith is in those who do and how they are interpreting the results of their experiments.

Which are open to scrutiny from everyone else in the academic world and may be proven to be false is and when better evidence comes to light to suggest that. To even get to the point of being taken seriously you need evidence to suggest you may be on to something. Its not plucked out of thin air and proposed as truth. Its logical conclusions from observable phenomena which all go towards backing up a theory.

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

Pudsy33

dlofnep wrote: »

Sure they can. God almost certainly does not exist. Next.

Well played

Pushtrak

Mance Rayder wrote: »

I love science, I am all for scientific method. I just don't like militant atheists (Not saying your one of them, just in general;)) who jump on threads just because it has the word God in the title.

Tell me what militant is, and how it is applicable to atheists.

It is possible to be have a spiritual side and be scientific. They are not mutually exclusive.

Spiritual as in non-religious? What exactly is meant by spiritual in a non-religious capacity? Never quite got what people meant.

Pedant

CERN is mostly publicly funded by governments around the globe. It's easier to convince publicly funded sources than privately funded sources who are more likely to have expertise in the field and would probably be more capable of sifting through the bullshit.

Therefore, CERN come out every once in a while with press releases to reinsure the public that their money is being well spent.

The fact is, however, CERN announced that they have discovered something like the Higgs-Boson particle a few months ago, so this announcement is just rehashing old news and really just another effort to get a funding lifeline.

Here's what they said in December 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/8947263/Higgs-boson-scientists-reveal-first-tantalising-glimpses-of-God-Particle.html

Notice that they say they haven't fully discovered it yet, so basically their saying "We're nearly there, please continue to fund us, we're nearly there, just one step away". They're just drawing it out for as long as they can.

kincsem

smash wrote: »

Well having proof which suggests it exists because they have found it's footprint, is a lot different than having a belief that something exists because a book says so.

Bigfoot?

Mance Rayder

Evolution is a fact, anyone who disputes it is simply not worth taking seriously.

ScumLord

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

People share tasks, just because you can't carve a sculpture or paint a painting doesn't mean you can't appreciated the art at some level, or even go onto appreciated it in full with some research into art. That's if you have the time, which you won't if you've other work or interests to fill your time.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

Priest hood is based on perpetuating a non changing story that cannot be backed up.

The scientific community couldnt be further from that. I have faith in the scientific community not to tell me what is real or true but to find the best possible explanation as can be drawn from the facts and proof available. Same way as I have faith in the weather man to do his job. I dont have blind faith that he cannot be wrong, I dont believe the higgs boson exists with 100% certainty but there are pretty good indications that it does. Indications which have a high chance of being correct given the level of detail gone through to get them. By people who have a very high possibility of doing a good job considering the experience and knowledge required to get them to that position. Which to means the results when standing scrutiny is a good indication that the finding are accurate.

Its not blind faith, its not comparable to religion.

Mance Rayder

Pushtrak wrote: »

Tell me what militant is, and how it is applicable to atheists.

Spiritual as in non-religious? What exactly is meant by spiritual in a non-religious capacity? Never quite got what people meant.

It is possible to believe in God or in a spiritual side without being religious.

Not believing in any subscribed and organized faith based on ritual, books, teachings or establishment, just believing that there is more to existence then the physical, which is clearly demonstrated by human conscience.

What is it you don't get?

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You are just believing a priest hood if you can't do the maths. I can, as it happens. Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant. And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority.

Priest hood is based on perpetuating a non changing story that cannot be backed up.

The scientific community couldnt be further from that. I have faith in the scientific community not to tell me what is real or true but to find the best possible explanation as can be drawn from the facts and proof available. Same way as I have faith in the weather man to do his job. I dont have blind faith that he cannot be wrong, I dont believe the higgs boson exists with 100% certainty but there are pretty good indications that it does. Indications which have a high chance of being correct given the level of detail gone through to get them. By people who have a very high possibility of doing a good job considering the experience and knowledge required to get them to that position. Which to means the results when standing scrutiny is a good indication that the finding are accurate.

Its not blind faith, its not comparable to religion.

. All of that is an argument to authority. Not a huge problem here but it is in other places where we put faith in scientists ie scientists backed by corporations or even government funding.

brimal

Please, please, please stop calling it the God particle!

The Higgs boson has nothing to do with God, faith or science vs. religion arguments. It was a badly chosen nickname that the media has had a field day with.

All it is is a missing piece in what is an already well understood Standard Model of physics. Physicists have predicted it and expect it to appear in the data. Although finding it would be pretty cool, it wouldn't be such an amazing discovery as the media suggest. Some physicists have been quoted as saying they would prefer if they didn't find it, as it would raise more questions than answers.

Personally I'm more interested in the spin-off discoveries/theories from the LHC data - dark matter, antimatter, string theory, branes, etc.

El Guapo!

So are they gonna find out how magnets work now or what?!

Dyr

Jesus, I'm off me face on science after reading all this

Pushtrak

Mance Rayder wrote: »

It is possible to believe in God or in a spiritual side without being religious.

Yes, I know one can believe in a god without a religion. Deism, pantheism, panentheism... I've just never known what people meant when they say they are spiritual and they aren't referring to a deity.

What is it you don't get?

The bolded bit.

Not believing in any subscribed and organized faith based on ritual, books, teachings or establishment, just believing that there is more to existence then the physical, which is clearly demonstrated by human conscience.

Gurgle

brimal wrote: »

The Higgs boson has nothing to do with God, faith or science vs. religion arguments. It was a badly chosen nickname that the media has had a field day with.

But I always get a good giggle when someone claims evolution isn't fact, just a theory.

We could get a century of giggles out of this god Particle, longer if we agree to always give it a small g and a capital P.

OMg, its the god Particle :b

Pushtrak

Gurgle wrote: »

But I always get a good giggle when someone claims evolution isn't fact, just a theory.

We could get a century of giggles out of this god Particle, longer if we agree to always give it a small g and a capital P.

OMg, its the god Particle :b

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think the capital G would work better. It'd be downright blasphemous. Whereas the small g can be deemed to refer to some pagan non god.

Paddycrumlinman

Leftist wrote: »

whoa, lets not get blasphemous.

Do you have a concept of how big and how complicated the universe is? He created life that can think for itself. that is genius. Every year he should get the noble prize imo.

Absolute, again for "God" to do such a wondrous job with our amazing Universe, he sure did a ****ty job with the folks on this planet, and don't give me all that free will ****e, It's basically saying, hey, love and honor me, I'm a god and if you don't you'll go to hell... LMAO!! Seriously? WTF?

"God" must of had an off day when creating humans, oh wait, he is perfect is in he?

Again, a bunch of bollix my friend.

Gurgle

Pushtrak wrote: »

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think the capital G would work better. It'd be downright blasphemous. Whereas the small g can be deemed to refer to some pagan non god.

Yes, I see your point but I thought the little g for god would piss off all the preachy bible bashers who live according to God's law and do God's work and get a migraine from typing / writing / saying god with a small g.

And the capital P could cause a few strokes.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

. All of that is an argument to authority. Not a huge problem here but it is in other places where we put faith in scientists ie scientists backed by corporations or even government funding.

But that just boils down to faith in your own experience. You say you understand the math involved in this. So you have faith in the math being accurate and faith enough to attribute worth to those findings.

Your argument is "people have faith". Which I cannot argue against. But faith doesnt have to be blind faith. I understand the concept of mathematics, I dont have to know particle physics to have the same faith in your equations as you do, only your ability to apply them which when scrutinized by peers makes my view that they are correct just as valid as anyone elses regardless of whether or not I have tested it myself.

I dont have to prove everything myself to prove its right. Nobody does and that doesnt mean my opinion is not valid or that I am purely relying on faith.

Shryke

I'm going to fit myself out for when a resonance cascade causes a breach in dimensions.
Crowbar, check. And done.

Nollog

summerskin wrote: »

Jesus, son of Higgs Boson Particle just doesn't have the same ring to it. And how will people know when to sit, stand or kneel? Or will they just run around in circles really really fast to show their respect for the particle that created them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilUS_9Nb_GM
You mean like in Islam?

I find it funny that the first people to bring up a God debate in a science thread was the atheists.

Mance Rayder

Pushtrak wrote: »

Yes, I know one can believe in a god without a religion. Deism, pantheism, panentheism... I've just never known what people meant when they say they are spiritual and they aren't referring to a deity.

The bolded bit.

Fair enough, I don't get Bronies or hip-hop fans. Yet they exist.

Pushtrak

Mance Rayder wrote: »

Fair enough, I don't get Bronies or hip-hop fans. Yet they exist.

Well, that is just their taste which is something that will boggle the mind, but taste isn't exactly a good analog. With belief, I prefer to try to find method to the madness.

Religion, nonsense, but I understand what it provides for the religious person. Spiritualism, I don't know what it is, much less what it provides. It is, I presume whatever any given person wants to say it is. Religion has a structure/framework that is easy to understand, whereas spiritualism, or people referring to themselves as spiritual people are saying nothing.

Mance Rayder

Pushtrak wrote: »

Well, that is just their taste which is something that will boggle the mind, but taste isn't exactly a good analog. With belief, I prefer to try to find method to the madness.

Religion, nonsense, but I understand what it provides for the religious person. Spiritualism, I don't know what it is, much less what it provides. It is, I presume whatever any given person wants to say it is. Religion has a structure/framework that is easy to understand, whereas spiritualism, or people referring to themselves as spiritual people are saying nothing.

I hate the term spiritualism personally, always reminds me of spiritualists and mediums etc, who are loons to say the least.

I am talking Psychology here, and Philosophy, Until I am shown a better explanation of my conscience existence as a thinking being, I will continue to believe that there is a soul and a source.

Conall Cernach

Dean09 wrote: »

So are they gonna find out how magnets work now or what?!

I don't know but I'm still hoping for a hover bike at the end of all this.

Scioch

10010011001 wrote: »

Is this not more suited to the sciece forum?

What'll happen to the religious fanatics when (if) this particle is confirmed?

Will this completely quash any notion of (a) deitie(s)?

Work of the devil or all part of gods master plan. You dont expect them to actually think rationally do ya ? :pac:

af_thefragile

I don't understand how the "God particle" will disprove God or religion or whatever.

To me its just another one of those theoretical elementary particles that fits the gaps in explaining a little better how quantum mechanics work if discovered.

God and religion is fairly separate from Physics. Its more of a philosophical debate than a debate of Science.

brimal

Like I said, the Higgs boson has nothing to do with God.

In simple terms, it is the particle that gives all other particles mass (no pun intended!) - that's all.

Gurgle

/\/ollog wrote: »

the first people to bring up a God debate in a science thread was the atheists.

*Ahem* a science thread in AH, where 4 of the 5 words in the thread title are 'Proof of God found'.

(OP, can you make that a small 'g' please?)

Mance Rayder

10010011001 wrote: »

Can I ask if you believe in God?

Did you register just for this? are you an atheist?

RobbingBandit

So it really is all just atoms then.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Unless you can do the maths you too are taking the god particle as faith.

Ah c'mon. That's simply word play. Also, faith in a god or its representatives on Earth is not the same as listening to a scientist who can release figures so that they can be tested for accuracy.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Maths to non-mathematicans is like hieroglyphics to an Egyptian peasant.

That's me. Absolutely useless at maths but still well interested in science and all that.

And the argument of people who can't do, or understand the science, themselves is an argument to authority

What? Very few people would understand the science.

OMARS_COMING_

This find is going to pave the way for many more.

delad

brimal wrote: »

Like I said, the Higgs boson has nothing to do with God.

It will explain how god made us.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

It will explain how god made us.

No.

cocoshovel

Copyright infringement reasons? oh come on now. Is this the effect of junior infant Sean Sherlock?

My name is URL

delad wrote: »

It will explain how god made us.

lol.. are you serious?

After reading the thread you just had closed, I wouldn't have expected you to say that

paddy147

How will this amazing information change my life for the better then?

Do we not have to pay back the German Bondholders now???