Proof of 'God particle' found

prinz

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the reference to GOD is that a Higg's Boson Particle aka the GOD particle was responsible for creating the universe via the big bang

The term "god-particle" has nothing to do with what they are doing at CERN and was nothing more than a catchy buzzword.

According to people who have investigated the subject, the term originated with a 1993 history of particle physics by U.S. Nobel prize winner Leon M Lederman.

The book was titled: "The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?"

Physicists say Lederman, who over the years has been the target of much opprobrium from his scientific colleagues, tells friends he wanted to call the book "The Goddamned Particle" to reflect frustration at the failure to find it.

But, according to that account, his publisher rejected the epithet - possibly because of its potential to upset a strongly religious U.S. public - and convinced Lederman to accept the alternative he proposed.

"Lederman has a lot to answer for," said Higgs himself, now 82, on a visit to Geneva some six years ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-science-higgs-god-idUSTRE7BC28H20111213

"I hate that 'God particle' term," said Pauline Gagnon, a Canadian member of CERN's ATLAS team of so-called "Higgs hunters" - an epithet they do not reject.

"Calling it the 'God particle' is completely inappropriate," said the German physicist, who divides his time between CERN and teaching at London's Imperial College.

"Hearing it called the 'God particle' makes me angry. It confuses people about what we are trying to do here at CERN."

I'll go with the CERN team themselves.

Nothingbetter2d

prinz wrote: »

The term "god-particle" has nothing to do with what they are doing at CERN and was nothing more than a catchy buzzword.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-science-higgs-god-idUSTRE7BC28H20111213



I'll go with the CERN team themselves.

to quote a paragraph in your own link

"The field was posited in the 1960s by British scientist Peter Higgs as the way that matter obtained mass after the universe was created in the Big Bang.

As such, according to the theory, it was the agent that made the stars, planets - and life - possible by giving mass to most elementary particles, the building blocks of the universe; hence the nickname "God particle.""

it is this reason why the media dubbed the higgs boson particle the "god particle"

prinz

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

it is this reason why the media dubbed the higgs boson particle the "god particle"

So you are going to go with the media rather than the CERN team and Higgs himself? The god particle is just to spoonfeed people nice catchy headlines with a minimum amount of thinking required. The fact that this thread has turned into science versus religion is a perfect illustration of why the term god particle should be discouraged.

Nothingbetter2d

prinz wrote: »

So you are going to go with the media rather than the CERN team and Higgs himself? The god particle is just to spoonfeed people nice catchy headlines with a minimum amount of thinking required. The fact that this thread has turned into science versus religion is a perfect illustration of why the term god particle should be discouraged.

no the "god particle" was dubbed by the media to make the news easy to understand by those who don't have a ph'd in particle physics.

prinz

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

no the "god particle" was dubbed by the media to make the news easy to understand by those who don't have a ph'd in particle physics.

It takes a Phd in particle physics to say the Higgs Boson Particle? Jaysus I better send away for parchment now.

Nothingbetter2d

prinz wrote: »

It takes a Phd in particle physics to say the Higgs Boson Particle? Jaysus I better send away for parchment now.

no but you should know how the media does it, when it comes to informing the skangers that buy the tabloids papers instead of a proper paper. :rolleyes:

but i'd say you are that type that would argue paint off a wall

General Relativity

Nulty wrote: »

Scientific theory just means that the theory has not been disproved it...yet.

LOL, NO.



It has become obvious that many people on these forums do not know the traditional scientific definitions and hierarchy of hypotheses, theories, and facts. So, I will attempt to explain them here.

Firstly, facts are not included in this hierarchy. Something does not go from hypothesis to theory to fact, it goes from hypothesis to theory with facts used to make that jump. Facts are observed properties of the world.

Secondly, in the traditional science world, a hypothesis comes in this form:

If ... then ... because.

If I hit you, then it will hurt, because your nerve endings translate damage to your body as pain.

With all that out of the way, here's an example of the scientific hierarchy at work:

Hypothesis: If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel slower than it would in air, because water is thick and it takes time for things to move through it.

To prove this hypothesis, we must perform reliable, testable, and repeatable experiments, in which our observed facts may or may not hold up to our hypothesis.

Fact: It takes .05 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, above water. Points A and B will stay the same distance apart throughout this experiment.

Fact: It takes .03 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, below water.

Our original hypothesis has just been disproved.

Because an observed fact just contradicted our hypothesis, that means we must change our hypothesis to fit the data. So:

If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together.

This new hypothesis supports the data, so that should be it, right? Wrong. The new hypothesis puts forth an interesting statement: Water and Air are made up of sound-carrying particles. That, in itself, is a hypothesis. So how do we prove it? We devise a cunning and imaginative experiment to prove it!

First, we need another hypothesis we can use to help guide this experiment:

If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles.

Obviously, now we have to show that sound is a wave. Then, we'll have to show that particles transmit waves.

So, let's see how we can show that sound is a wave. According to the equations of wave-dynamics, different frequency waves will set up troughs of cancelation and fortification. In that: sometimes, waves will cancel each other out, and other times they'll fortify themselves; add to themselves. So let's prove that sound does the same thing.

Firstly, let's get a clear plastic tube. In this tube, we will put a bunch of tiny, light, white, ball-like particles. On one end of the tube, we will have two variable sound-transmitters. We set one of these transmitters to emit a sustained note, and we observe a fact: the particles begin to vibrate and move, and arrange themselves into a wave! But we haven't proved anything yet; they may look like a wave, but we haven't shown that they behave according to the set laws of wave dynamics. So we start the other note (carefully tuned to produce the cancelation and fortification effects when it reacts with the first note), and lo and behold, the particles show cancelation and fortification troughs, in the exact frequency the equations of wave-dynamics predict!

So, with one experiment, we've shown that particles can transmit waves, and that sound is a wave.

Back to water and air:

Our third hypothesis, "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles" has been proven. This should help to support our second hypothesis: "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together". But how do we show that sound travels faster when particles are closer together? We perform experiments and observe facts! (I'm running low on creativity here, so like hell I'm describing another experiment. I'll just give you the results:)

Fact: In denser materials, particles are closer together, and so have less distance to cover when they bump into each other.

Since waves are transmitted when particles bump into each other, we can show that, since water is denser than air (and so its particles are closer together), a sound wave is transmitted faster through water than air. And so, our hypothesis is proven, and now we have a theory.

Theory: Sound travels faster as the medium gets denser.

This theory will never become fact. Ever. It will always remain theory. Unless, of course, someone can come up with contradictory evidence, in which case we'd have to go through the whole process again to fit the new data.

So, let me say it again:

1. Observed fact.

2. Hypothesis.

3. Contradictory data.

4. New hypothesis.

5. Supportive data.

6. (test, test, test, test ,test!!!)

7. Theory!

8. Contradictory data

9. Hypothesis

Ad infinitum.

Tl;DR: http://readingeggs.co.uk/

kevmy85

This has nothing to do with God or attempting to prove or disprove one particular religion or another.

I'd imagine there are scientists and technicians of all religions and none at CERN all involved in the search for this. They would not see it as anything to do with religion, as already pointed out.

As a working scientist myself I would say very few scientists see much of a relation between religion and the science they are doing. They will stand up for theories which are scientifically tested against anyone who disagrees, be they religious or not. Humanists and fanatical atheists are found in every field (including science) just as people who have faith are found in every field (including science).

In terms of whether it was all worth it monetary terms I think you will find a lot of non-particle physics scientists would say not. They would prefer the money be poured into their own field, whatever that is. Such things as cancer research, disease control, astronomy, renewable energy research, fusion research, applied tech.

Still in terms of "big science" esoteric terms I find it interesting and I'd prefer the money going into science and engineering than elsewhere.

prinz

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

no but you should know how the media does it, when it comes to informing the skangers that buy the tabloids papers instead of a proper paper. :rolleyes:

Which was exactly my point to begin with :pac: Complete with Dr Roll Eyes Phd... using god particle causes more confusion than it's worth imo.

Scioch

prinz wrote: »

It takes a Phd in particle physics to say the Higgs Boson Particle? Jaysus I better send away for parchment now.

Surely anything that catches peoples attention is good though ? You say higgs boson particle discovered and people wont know what it is or take enough interest to find out. Just another nerd fest about things us mortals know nothing about.

You say "god particle" and people feel the need to clarify what is meant by that. It gives an initial impression that this is important in relation to understanding nature.

But James Gillies, spokesman for CERN and himself a physicist, is slightly more equivocal.

"Of course it has nothing to do with God whatsoever," he says. "But I can understand why people go that way because the Higgs is so important to our understanding of nature."

GarIT

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

If you look at the dictionary definition of god and the scientific explanation of the Higg's boson particle you will see that this particle actually is god.

squod

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

ROTFL

Captain Chaos

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

If you look at the dictionary definition of god and the scientific explanation of the Higg's boson particle you will see that this particle actually is god.

Quick, we got a live one here.

keano_afc

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

If you look at the dictionary definition of god and the scientific explanation of the Higg's boson particle you will see that this particle actually is god.

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your magazine.

Chips Ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FYTc55nGEI

Pedant

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

No it doesn't. The Higgs particle only describes how mass came into being, not how energy came into being. This particle was not the reason for the creation of the universe, it was just a by-product after the first few millisecond after the big bang. The "God" particle is far from what one might perceive as "God" or a "Creator".

this is pretty damn awesome

Nothingbetter2d

Pedant wrote: »

No it doesn't. The Higgs particle only describes how mass came into being, not how energy came into being. This particle was not the reason for the creation of the universe, it was just a by-product after the first few millisecond after the big bang. The "God" particle is far from what one might perceive as "God" or a "Creator".

but God only exists in the minds of people who are made up of matter... without higgs particle matter would not exist thus God would not exist as there would have been no humans to believe in God

Pedant

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

but God only exists in the minds of people who are made up of matter... without higgs particle matter would not exist thus God would not exist as there would have been no humans to believe in God

Wait, just because someone believes in something means it exists...? You're looking at this the wrong way.

opinion guy

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

If you look at the dictionary definition of god and the scientific explanation of the Higg's boson particle you will see that this particle actually is god.

<Clicks Unfollow>

Nothingbetter2d

Pedant wrote: »

Wait, just because someone believes in something means it exists...? You're looking at this the wrong way.

i think therefore i am

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

This particle is a vital part of the creation of the universe. It could possibly be described as the creator of the universe.

If you ask a religious person what is god they will say the creator of the universe. Therefore you can conclude that if a god created the universe, this particle is god. Hence the name 'God particle'.

If you look at the dictionary definition of god and the scientific explanation of the Higg's boson particle you will see that this particle actually is god.

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1015905/Nathan-Fillion-reaction-gif_medium.gif

Shryke

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

Pedant wrote: »

No it doesn't. The Higgs particle only describes how mass came into being, not how energy came into being. This particle was not the reason for the creation of the universe, it was just a by-product after the first few millisecond after the big bang. The "God" particle is far from what one might perceive as "God" or a "Creator".

but God only exists in the minds of people who are made up of matter... without higgs particle matter would not exist thus God would not exist as there would have been no humans to believe in God

Or Batman. You dig?

ScumLord

General Relativity wrote: »

If I hit you, then it will hurt, because your nerve endings translate damage to your body as pain.

But what if I'm hard as nails and you hit like a wuss? Where's your so called science now?! :pac:

Nothingbetter2d

Shryke wrote: »

Or Batman. You dig?

Batman did exist... well at least in a few forms... actors, comics, images

woof im a dog

theres some problem with the higgs potential i think theyre gonna look for susy now

General Relativity

ScumLord wrote: »

But what if I'm hard as nails and you hit like a wuss? Where's your so called science now?! :pac:

We build a super-lazer and lay waste to our enemies... duh.

ThinkAboutIt

Getting a great laugh out of the atheists getting so hot and bothered LOL

Scioch

Any physicist or well informed boardies here to explain this to us ? Is the higgs boson responsible for attributing mass to other particles ? Does that mean it also attributes energy ? IS the higgs boson itself energy ? Whats the story ?

GarIT

Pedant wrote: »

No it doesn't. The Higgs particle only describes how mass came into being, not how energy came into being. This particle was not the reason for the creation of the universe, it was just a by-product after the first few millisecond after the big bang. The "God" particle is far from what one might perceive as "God" or a "Creator".

The god described in the bible only describes how mass came to being, not how energy came into being. Therefore this particle is the god described in the bible.

The Christian faith says that there is only one god and always is one god. There may be no Higg's Boson particle or there may be any number of Higg's boson particles at any time. Therefore there can be more or less than one 'god'. Therefore the christian faith is false as they believe there can only ever be one god. Similarly the Jewish faith is false.

Nothingbetter2d

LordSmeg wrote: »

Any physicist or well informed boardies here to explain this to us ? Is the higgs boson responsible for attributing mass to other particles ? Does that mean it also attributes energy ? IS the higgs boson itself energy ? Whats the story ?

the Higgs boson particle is a fundamental or elementary particle.

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure, thus it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. In the Standard Model, the elementary particles include the fundamental fermions (including quarks, leptons, and their antiparticles), and the fundamental bosons (including gauge bosons and the Higgs boson).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

kevmy85

LordSmeg wrote: »

Any physicist or well informed boardies here to explain this to us ? Is the higgs boson responsible for attributing mass to other particles ? Does that mean it also attributes energy ? IS the higgs boson itself energy ? Whats the story ?

The Higgs boson interacts with a thing called the Higgs field to impart mass.

The Higgs field exists everywhere and permeates the entire universe. When it meets atoms with the Higgs boson (or a number of them) the interaction between the boson and the field give mass.

Now that the atoms have mass they get affected by gravity causing them to clump together to build nebula, stars, elements, ketchup and tortoises.

DeadParrot

The levels of stupidity in this thread would make you question evolution to be fair.
Consider the fact that for 3.8 billion years, a period of time older than the Earth's mountains and rivers and oceans, everyone of your forbears on both sides has been attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise deflected from it's life quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that could result - eventually, astoundingly, and all to briefly-in some absolute ****ing idiots in this thread

Scioch

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the Higgs boson particle is a fundamental or elementary particle.

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure, thus it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made. In the Standard Model, the elementary particles include the fundamental fermions (including quarks, leptons, and their antiparticles), and the fundamental bosons (including gauge bosons and the Higgs boson).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

But is the higgs boson responsible for mass and energy ?

The existence of the Higgs boson was predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass

Whats that mean ?

af_thefragile

GarIT wrote: »

The god described in the bible only describes how mass came to being, not how energy came into being. Therefore this particle is the god described in the bible.

The Christian faith says that there is only one god and always is one god. There may be no Higg's Boson particle or there may be any number of Higg's boson particles at any time. Therefore there can be more or less than one 'god'. Therefore the christian faith is false as they believe there can only ever be one god. Similarly the Jewish faith is false.

Totally depends on how you view God.

If you view God as some chemist/physicist sitting up there playing with his lab set and creating matter then yeah, the Higg's Boson particle may negate that God.

But if God is something that exists outside of our universe independent of time and space and all physicists discover is the intricate workings of how God created the universe to function, then it takes a bit more to disprove a God creating the universe. And as all of our science atleast for now is only limited to our universe and what takes place inside of it, then it can't reach out far enough to study a God or to say whether such a God exists or not.

Again the question of God is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate. Science needs to assume causality to work out the workings of the universe. Although causality seems to fall apart when it comes down to the elementary particles. In religious philosophy, in some schools (as if I remember it was Aristotle who first proposed this, or it could have been Plato) that you can't prove causality. You can't prove events in the universe have a cause and effect. We just observe events as they take place and assume causality to them. One could expand by saying certain events always lead to certain results (which is what experiemental science is based on) because God's actions are consistent hence we can assume a causes b and hence science works and functions. Again, purely a philosophical debate and nothing science can or can not do to prove or disprove it.

kevmy85

LordSmeg wrote: »

But is the higgs boson responsible for mass and energy ?

Mass and energy are interrelated: E=Mc^2. Where E = energy, M = mass and c = speed of light.

I don't think it is possible to say it is responsible for energy.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Whats that mean ?

I believe other bosons can interact with the Higgs field to impart mass but that a Higgs boson is necessary for this to happen.

Scioch

DeadParrot wrote: »

The levels of stupidity in this thread would make you question evolution to be fair.
Consider the fact that for 3.8 billion years, a period of time older than the Earth's mountains and rivers and oceans, everyone of your forbears on both sides has been attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise deflected from it's life quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that could result - eventually, astoundingly, and all to briefly-in some absolute ****ing idiots in this thread

Shame on you misusing old Bill's words like that. Its an ode to the marvels of existence not a cheap insult. :mad:

entropi

The particle is dubbed the "god" particle, but will serve to prove that the universe began through interaction of energy, rather than creation by a supposed creator. Seems like a stupid name for it tbh. Should have just called it something else.

Sure no matter what happens, the preachers and followers of some religions will find some way to say that their "god" will be the one that made the particle exist :rolleyes:

Pushtrak

io9 did an article, Stop calling it the god Particle. There is too much in the article to copy it, worth checking out if interested though.

Nothingbetter2d

LordSmeg wrote: »

But is the higgs boson responsible for mass and energy ?



Whats that mean ?

its responsible for mass... but as we all learned in school energy cannot be created or destroyed... it just changes from one form to another. therefore energy always existed in some form or another

Pushtrak

From the article I linked in my previous:

2) It's not the only thing that can make mass.

The Higgs mechanism was developed to address a very specific problem. It was well-known at the time that assuming what are known as "local gauge symmetries" (PROTIP: work that phrase into conversation as often as possible) would give rise almost immediately to various mediator particles. For electromagnetism, we expect 1, the photon. For the weak force, we expect 3, the W^+, W^-, and Z^0.

But there's a problem — the theory also predicts that all of these mediators should be massless, and the W and Z particles are huge. The W particles are both about 86 times the mass of a proton, and the Z boson is about 97 times as massive as the proton.

Energy and mass are equivalent to one another. Remember, E=mc^2. But this reaction holds in reverse: m=E/c^2. Pour enough energy into a system and you create mass!

The basic idea (after glossing over LOTS of details of symmetry-breaking and the like) is that there is a Higgs field out there, and the interaction between the Higgs field and the W and Z fields creates energy, and we measure this as mass.

But this isn't just true of the Higgs, but of every energy of interaction. Just to give you an idea, you are made of protons and neutron, and your protons and neutrons are made of quarks. But the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. The total mass of quarks in a proton is only about 2% the mass of the proton, itself. The rest –- virtually all of your mass -– is made up of the interaction energies between the quarks.

Put another way, even if the mass of the quarks comes from the Higgs somehow — and even if the Higgs exists, we don't know exactly how it relates to other particles besides the W's and Z — almost none of your mass comes from the Higgs.

(Might as well source it again... http://io9.com/5923170/stop-calling-it-the-god-particle)

prinz

kevmy85 wrote: »

The Higgs field exists everywhere and permeates the entire universe. When it meets atoms with the Higgs boson (or a number of them) the interaction between the boson and the field give mass..

How strong with this one the Higgs field must be... doesn't have the same ring to it.

So I won't be able to remotely strangle you from across the room, but if I play my Higgs field and bosons just right, I may be able to conjure up a hand with mass around your throat. :pac:

I'm a bit torn on this one tbh. It's fascinating stuff and all that, and just goes to show what can be done with (a) the money (b) the right people involved and (c) the will to do it... and yet there's still so much war, starvation, disease etc the world over.

Nothingbetter2d

prinz wrote: »

How strong with this one the Higgs field must be... doesn't have the same ring to it.

So I won't be able to remotely strangle you from across the room, but if I play my Higgs field and bosons just right, I may be able to conjure up a hand with mass around your throat. :pac:

OR you could crush him with a planet you just made using your higgs field and bosons

IloveConverse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28X9czEROPs

What they found could be the god particle it could also be a piece of cheese but we have to show something for the billions spent.

GarIT

af_thefragile wrote: »

Totally depends on how you view God.

If you view God as some chemist/physicist sitting up there playing with his lab set and creating matter then yeah, the Higg's Boson particle may negate that God.

But if God is something that exists outside of our universe independent of time and space and all physicists discover is the intricate workings of how God created the universe to function, then it takes a bit more to disprove a God creating the universe. And as all of our science atleast for now is only limited to our universe and what takes place inside of it, then it can't reach out far enough to study a God or to say whether such a God exists or not.

Again the question of God is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate. Science needs to assume causality to work out the workings of the universe. Although causality seems to fall apart when it comes down to the elementary particles. In religious philosophy, in some schools (as if I remember it was Aristotle who first proposed this, or it could have been Plato) that you can't prove causality. You can't prove events in the universe have a cause and effect. We just observe events as they take place and assume causality to them. One could expand by saying certain events always lead to certain results (which is what experiemental science is based on) because God's actions are consistent hence we can assume a causes b and hence science works and functions. Again, purely a philosophical debate and nothing science can or can not do to prove or disprove it.

It proves 100% that god didn't create the earth though. But a god may have created the higg's boson particle with the intentions of it creating the earth.

MisterEpicurus

The Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says "We don't allow Higgs boson in here. The Higgs boson says, "But without me how can you have mass?"

GarIT wrote: »

It proves 100% that god didn't create the earth though. But a god may have created the higg's boson particle with the intentions of it creating the earth.

I'm on your side of this debate but I fail to see the connection between how the discovery of this particle affects the theist position. Would you care to outline specifically why it worsens the theist position? Thanks!

sbsquarepants

GarIT wrote: »

It proves 100% that god didn't create the earth though. But a god may have created the higg's boson particle with the intentions of it creating the earth.

It proves absolutely no such thing.

And how are those 2 things you mentioned different anyway?

If i go to the time and bother to individually make bricks by hand, (as is the case for some high end bricks), or i build a machine to mass produce them, (as is the case with cheaper bricks). I'm still making the bricks!!

This particle doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with religion, It's just called the god particle - it's just a name. It could just as easily be called the jay-z particle, or the georgia salpa particle.

Smyth

See thread on the results from the LHC.

Skip to last page.

God debate. Only on boards. hurr.

Pedant

Imagine atoms without the Higgs-Boson, they'd be like invisible.