Proof of 'God particle' found

ThinkAboutIt

the atheists sound angry
LOL LOL:D

Pushtrak

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

the atheists sound angry
LOL LOL:D

Is your username supposed to be ironic?

DarkDusk

It takes too much effort to read through this thread because of all the idiotic posts.

The Higgs Boson has nothing to do with religion, so can we now stop referring to religion and "God", and hopefully have a meaningful discussion about what happened today, and what is yet to come.







That was worth a try, but there's always one that won't listen!

Scioch

You know whats worse than the religious aspect of the discussion ? People with no interest in discussing anything coming in to complain about the religious aspect of the discussion.

By all means join in and contribute something worth reading yourselves if you dont find the discussion satisfactory.

Penn

I'm an atheist and couldn't give a f*ck if it's referred to as the "God Particle" or not. It's a truly amazing scientific discovery. That's all that matters.

Nothingbetter2d

DarkDusk wrote: »

It takes too much effort to read through this thread because of all the idiotic posts.

The Higgs Boson has nothing to do with religion, so can we now stop referring to religion and "God", and hopefully have a meaningful discussion about what happened today, and what is yet to come.







That was worth a try, but there's always one that won't listen!

yeah posts like yours are sooooooooo useful :rolleyes:

Jester252

Could all this info be false due to a loose cable?

entropi

LordSmeg wrote: »

You know whats worse than the religious aspect of the discussion ? People with no interest in discussing anything coming in to complain about the religious aspect of the discussion.

By all means join in and contribute something worth reading yourselves if you dont find the discussion satisfactory.

The problem with the emboldened part, is that the thread is in AH. Yes, it may bring some news that many people may not have otherwise known about, but may have been interested to find out, yet I would imagine that a thread abot something of this magnitude in the scientific community would be much better suited to the physics forum.

Scioch

The Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of dark energy nor of the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity

Next on the to do list are Dark Matter and gravitation. Excuse me if I blow your mind here but lacking anything whatsoever to back it up (even the most rudimentary understanding of the most basic laws of physics) I'm gonna go with my gut here and say Gravity is the lack of Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the lack of Gravity. We are dealing with one force (which also comes in matter form due to the ammm stretching of the higgs field due to space time continuum fluctuations) and I shall call this force/matter Fatter.

Ladies and gentlemen if we are to understand space itself we must understand this Fatter. I'm gonna do my bit and make a start on this here tub of pringles. I'll report back with my results and then maybe tackle a few fox classics.

Scioch

Master of Nothing wrote: »

The problem with the emboldened part, is that the thread is in AH. Yes, it may bring some news that many people may not have otherwise known about, but may have been interested to find out, yet I would imagine that a thread abot something of this magnitude in the scientific community would be much better suited to the physics forum.

There is a thread in the physics forum. I have no issue with the discussion however it goes but offering nothing but a complaint about how its going while making no effort to discuss it as you want it discussed is a bit pointless.

Just watched Stephen Fry on room 101 giving out about critics wasting their lives with their only contribution to anything was to tell others their contributions werent good enough. He had a point.

Pedant

OMG man, they excited the Higgs field that goes around the entire universe! That's like sending a message around the entire universe giving coordinates to Earths location! In the next few months we'll have all sorts of advanced aliens invading us from around the universe. It's like the end of the world people, 2012 was a real prophecy man.

Scioch

Pedant wrote: »

OMG man, they excited the Higgs field that goes around the entire universe! That's like sending a message around the entire universe giving coordinates to Earths location! In the next few months we'll have all sorts of advanced aliens invading us from around the universe. It's like the end of the world people, 2012 was a real prophecy man.

Probably come round to complain and tell us to please stop interfering with the field while they play planetary bowls.

af_thefragile

Pedant wrote: »

OMG man, they excited the Higgs field that goes around the entire universe! That's like sending a message around the entire universe giving coordinates to Earths location! In the next few months we'll have all sorts of advanced aliens invading us from around the universe. It's like the end of the world people, 2012 was a real prophecy man.

That could explain the Alien attacks at the London Olympics....

Burt Lancaster

Penn wrote: »

I'm an atheist and couldn't give a f*ck if it's referred to as the "God Particle" or not. It's a truly amazing scientific discovery. That's all that matters.

Pity not all see it that way, some are on here claiming it proves God does not exist. Thing is Science doesn't care if God exists or not, as the issue of God's existence / non existence, is outside the field and remit of Science.

Pushtrak

Another video...

Edit: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208981_444776262210057_134446796_n.jpg

Scioch

^^ According to him the higgs boson makes the quanta which makes the higgs field. I thought it was a particle which interacted with the field rather than the field itself.

Or is it the same thing ?

Scioch

Currently, physics is in lack of a general theory of what the vacuum and the vacuum energy-field actually is. However, since the nineteen-sixties the consensus has gradually emerged that a certain field, the Higgs field, resides in the vacuum. The Higgs field differs from the ordinary fields in the respect that even in its ground-state there are quanta present. These quanta, the Higgs bosons, are regarded as actual physical manifestations of the vacuum energy-field. It is generally believed that the Higgs field is the entity which is responsible for turning the vacuum energy into matter. According to Quantum Field Theory the ordinary quanta require their mass by interactions with the Higgs field (or rather, with the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field). Prior to this interaction the electrons, quarks, force-carriers, etc. are the massless quanta of some assumed fields - the socalled gauge fields. In their massless shape the gauge field quanta are undetectable - so it is currently an open question whether the gauge fields actually are of physical relevance or just mathematical entities. Nevertheless, it is the consensus that the theory about the Higgs mechanism is the one theory that fits best with everything else known to quantum physics.

http://buddhasociety.com/quantum-physics/vacuum-fields-6

Found this helpful in trying to understand this higgs field.

sparksfly

To most of us, especially the millions of people starving all over the world this crap will make f**k all difference.

delad

sparksfly wrote: »

To most of us, especially the millions of people starving all over the world this crap will make f**k all difference.

not true, it will lead to the development of an extremely low cost food source

Manc-Red

delad wrote: »

not true, it will lead to the development of an extremely low cost food source

It will lead??? Really?? - You know this how btw?

delad

Manc-Red wrote: »

It will lead??? Really?? - You know this how btw?

by reading up on what the particle is exactly and using some logic and common sense

Yakult

Oh my science!

3rdDegree

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

do muslims call the god particle the allah particle?

Careful there now!

FloatingVoter

af_thefragile wrote: »

That could explain the Alien attacks at the London Olympics....

The Doctor saved us.

Doctor Who nerd alert.

Manc-Red

delad wrote: »

by reading up on what the particle is exactly and using some logic and common sense

Can you imagine how much food they would have got for the money they have used to "sort of" find this particle?

I could.

delad

Manc-Red wrote: »

Can you imagine how much food they would have got for the money they have used to "sort of" find this particle?

I could.

not enough to end world hunger, but it would of feed the starving for a week or so I suppose

Scioch

Manc-Red wrote: »

Can you imagine how much food they would have got for the money they have used to "sort of" find this particle?

I could.

None seeing as it wouldnt have been used to buy food even if this project never existed.

Burt Lancaster

delad wrote: »

not true, it will lead to the development of an extremely low cost food source

How exactly ?

sparksfly

Anyone who thinks that this "discovery" will help the worlds food shortage is seriously deluded.

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

Would be awesome if there was an addition to the "this year we'll be infracting for..." to make, perhaps a "this month..." No prizes for guessing what I'd nominate.

Is there? Can you elaborate?

Dave! wrote: »

A Church/religion is a monolithic organisation that is dedicated to a particular dogma, and disciplines priests who speak out against that dogma. There is no incentive for rebelling against this. They also provide no evidence for their claims.

The dogmatic claim on religion has been over-estimated. It depends on the religion and the time. Most modern Atheists don't seem like they have bothered a history book, and get their ideas from Dawkins, but Christianity in particular has in fact been far from hostile to science. If it were, we wouldn't have science.

Science researchers are employed by a whole array of different organisations, and are free to speak out against particular orthodoxies. In fact the scientific community rewards discoveries that overthrow previously accepted theories. Scientists are also expected to present evidence to support their claims, and publish them to be scrutinized by their peers.

Not all of this is true. There are science reports which rubbish the idea of smoking causing cancer for instance. And plenty of eminent physicists - like Freeman Dyson - oppose the consensus on global warming. Money chagnes the science. The main point is though, from the point of the layman - a phrase which comes from religion - a scientist is like a priest, pronouncing from on high. The only way to understand science is to read the maths. If you cant, you are believing it on faith.

I also doubt the commitment to science from the Left wing of the atheist movement. There have been numerous attacks on science from the left, mostly in fact against Darwinism - Dawkins seems to have forgotten those - for instance Edward O. Wilson was physically attacked for his darwinist views in the seventies, because the protester believed in the blank slate idea of human nature, an idea which is still common to left wing academe. Or look up lysenko. There is far more threat there than from Catholicism, which only cares about science when it affects God, a limited range.

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

I think you have added to the level of stupidity in this thread by posting an off topic rant totally unrelated to the Higgs Boson, no?

delad wrote: »

not true, it will lead to the development of an extremely low cost food source

no, it won't.

AtomicHorror

Penn wrote: »

I'm an atheist and couldn't give a f*ck if it's referred to as the "God Particle" or not. It's a truly amazing scientific discovery. That's all that matters.

It matters when discussions about the Higgs boson so frequently get derailed by people who think it has anything to do with supernatural beings. It's like, there's a missing piece in my jigsaw- let's call it the God piece. Because, you know, it's so hard to find.

It's an exciting discovery, it's a shame that's not the focus of the conversation.

Scioch

Just to point out that this money wasnt stacked in a heaped and burned either. It was spent on directly creating thousands of jobs, indirectly creating and sustaining many many more through creating untold amount of business for a vast array of different industries, building machinery and facilities which have a much wider scope than just finding one particle. And opening the way for future investment into further research that may be of huge benefit to humans in all manner of different areas.

Its has already made a difference and i will continue to do so. Money well spent as far as I can see. I'm sure you can argue anything to be less important when claiming the money can be used to feed the starving. Yet I notice those who do argue that have plenty of unnecessary stuff themselves. Nice houses, latest gadgets and a fridge full of their favorable foods. Why not give all your money to the starving and go live in the woods if you care that much about it ?

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Just to point out that this money wasnt stacked in a heaped and burned either. It was spent on directly creating thousands of jobs, indirectly creating and sustaining many many more through creating untold amount of business for a vast array of different industries, building machinery and facilities which have a much wider scope than just finding one particle. And opening the way for future investment into further research that may be of huge benefit to humans in all manner of different areas.

Yes, in fact public money well spent can create multiplier effects, and in this case, technological offshoots. We already know we have the internet because of CERN.

delad

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

How exactly ?

Its difficult to explain in laymans terms, but basically, this particle explains how mass is created where no mass existed before, once scientists work out exactly how it works in practice it will lead to the development of infinite food and energy sources, at very low costs. My prediction is that world hunger will be eradicated by the year 2100. Called.

Duggys Housemate

delad wrote: »

Its difficult to explain in laymans terms, but basically, this particle explains how mass is created where no mass existed before, once scientists work out exactly how it works in practice it will lead to the development of infinite food and energy sources, at very low costs.

no, it won't.

Pushtrak

Me wrote:

Would be awesome if there was an addition to the "this year we'll be infracting for..." to make, perhaps a "this month..." No prizes for guessing what I'd nominate.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Is there? Can you elaborate?

I said would be awesome, as in I'd like to have seen a one added for this month. Might as well just say it now, it was for people saying Tom Cruise. Was just sick of seeing it thrown in as a "I don't have anything intelligent to say but I feel obligated to say something" posts. In fairness, that is how they came across. I'm not one to object to such perspectives, this is AH after all. But, if a post is not going to be intelligent, I'd like it to at least be witty.

The dogmatic claim on religion has been over-estimated. It depends on the religion and the time. Most modern Atheists don't seem like they have bothered a history book, and get their ideas from Dawkins, but Christianity in particular has in fact been far from hostile to science. If it were, we wouldn't have science.

There have been great contributions to science from religious people. These would be scientists who don't let their religion get in the way of their science. The issue people ought to have is religion getting in the way of the science in terms of trying to get an accurate representation on reality.

For instance, I've seen a person who refused to even consider the big bang model until finding out about the involvement of a catholic priest. Then it was ok. It is important to note though, religion has been plenty hostile to newly discovered scientific truths throughout history. Don't be so blinkered as to ignore that.

Not all of this is true. There are science reports which rubbish the idea of smoking causing cancer for instance.

"Are"? Don't you mean were?

And plenty of eminent physicists - like Freeman Dyson - oppose the consensus on global warming.

Differing opinions which lead to reworking hypothesis, or finding new info is good. In the case of Dyson..

"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

He also accepts climate change, and that it is caused by man. So, he is far more on the same page, than he is against. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

Money chagnes the science.

Well, yes, as the work of science, unsurprisingly isn't going to be done by wishing it'd do itself.

The main point is though, from the point of the layman - a phrase which comes from religion - a scientist is like a priest, pronouncing from on high. The only way to understand science is to read the maths. If you cant, you are believing it on faith.

You aren't really going to get people understanding quantum mechanics en masse. But those of us who have an interest in fields of science and read up on things related to fields of science get to have a familiarity with the scientific method. It isn't taking the things on faith as you don't assume the current information is beyond challenge, but the best possible explanation on reality.

So, you fundamentally misunderstand some things if you try and label it as faith.

I also doubt the commitment to science from the Left wing of the atheist movement.

There is no political alliance with atheism. Atheists are going to be found in any cross section of society you care to look at. Well, except actual religious people, to state the obvious.

There have been numerous attacks on science from the left, mostly in fact against Darwinism

To what are you referring here? Is it to race and intelligence?

Dawkins seems to have forgotten those - for instance Edward O. Wilson was physically attacked for his darwinist views in the seventies,

No, that wasn't what he was attacked for. He was attacked as a racist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/feb/17/books.guardianreview57

Accused of racism and misogyny, of suggesting that some human beings are genetically superior to others, of echoing Nazi doctrines on eugenics, Wilson and his ideas were splashed on the cover of Time and the front page of the New York Times. Echoes of that fight were faintly heard this week in the renewed nature or nurture debate.

because the protester believed in the blank slate idea of human nature
, an idea which is still common to left wing academe.

Academia or general knowledge? Because I'd be inclined to agree on general knowledge which isn't much of a point in the discussion. It's still general knowledge that humans only use 10% of their brain. Not exactly all that valid a point though. Or at least I can't see the validity in it.

Or look up lysenko.

I don't think you are talking about a failed agricultural program.. But some fringe scientist quacks with concepts that will not make peer review. Is that correct?

There is far more threat there than from Catholicism, which only cares about science when it affects God, a limited range.

The non religious are concerned with religion as a whole. Though Catholicism on its own has some pretty horrific deeds to which it bears some responsibility. You have got to read this. Oh, also check this out.

One last thing, it is good to provide sources for things in a forum. It helps to make sure people are on the same page as regards a discussion.

delad

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

no, it won't.

excuse me, but I've worked in the theoretical physics field for over 20 years, I think I know what I'm talking about

Scioch

delad wrote: »

excuse me, but I've worked in the theoretical physics field for over 20 years, I think I know what I'm talking about

I'm Stephen Hawking's bowling partner and he reckons you is full of shít.

delad

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm Stephen Hawking's bowling partner and he reckons you is full of shít.

I'm his dancing partner, put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

There is no political alliance with atheism. Atheists are going to be found in any cross section of society you care to look at. Well, except actual religious people, to state the obvious.

Which is why I specifically said left wing atheism.

To what are you referring here? Is it to race and intelligence?

No, all darwinism as applied to humans.

No, that wasn't what he was attacked for. He was attacked as a racist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/feb/17/books.guardianreview57

Accused of racism and misogyny, of suggesting that some human beings are genetically superior to others, of echoing Nazi doctrines on eugenics, Wilson and his ideas were splashed on the cover of Time and the front page of the New York Times. Echoes of that fight were faintly heard this week in the renewed nature or nurture debate.

.

Being accused of racist doesn't make you one. He believed that in we could apply darwinism to humans, as opposed to the left wing creed of the blank slate, a lot of which still exists i.e. gender is a construct etc. So in effect this attack on him was a witch hunt. Dawkins was around then, so where was he defending Wilson?

I don't think you are talking about a failed agricultural program.. But some fringe scientist quacks with concepts that will not make peer review. Is that correct?

Jesus wept. Obscure? Tell that to the tens of real scientists he arranged to get killed. Lysenko was the foremost biologist of his day in the USSR, he supported the idea of Lamarckism which were overthrown by Darwin, Lamarckism is the idea that increases in fitness in one generation appled to the next - i.e. not gene mutations, Funny you don't know. Imagine however, he was a Catholic operating in Fascist Italy. Do you think he might be more famous?

this. Oh, also check this out.

Thats actually false as well. Witchcraft in Africa exists in and out of the Abrahamic traditions, and if Catholicism caused AIDS in Africa there would be a correlation in Africa between AIDS
and Catholicism in Africa . As you can see there isn't .

The correlation is with the Southern British Empire, though.

One last thing, it is good to provide sources for things in a forum. It helps to make sure people are on the same page as regards a discussion.

Wilson and Lysenko should be known by people who are educated on Darwinism. Just as somebody would not link to Hitchen's or Dawkin's, there should be no need to link to Wilson - the foremost Darwinist of his day, or Lysenko the biggest opponent of Darwinism in the 20th C.

Dave!

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The dogmatic claim on religion has been over-estimated. It depends on the religion and the time. Most modern Atheists don't seem like they have bothered a history book, and get their ideas from Dawkins, but Christianity in particular has in fact been far from hostile to science. If it were, we wouldn't have science.

Not all of this is true. There are science reports which rubbish the idea of smoking causing cancer for instance. And plenty of eminent physicists - like Freeman Dyson - oppose the consensus on global warming. Money chagnes the science. The main point is though, from the point of the layman - a phrase which comes from religion - a scientist is like a priest, pronouncing from on high. The only way to understand science is to read the maths. If you cant, you are believing it on faith.

I also doubt the commitment to science from the Left wing of the atheist movement. There have been numerous attacks on science from the left, mostly in fact against Darwinism - Dawkins seems to have forgotten those - for instance Edward O. Wilson was physically attacked for his darwinist views in the seventies, because the protester believed in the blank slate idea of human nature, an idea which is still common to left wing academe. Or look up lysenko. There is far more threat there than from Catholicism, which only cares about science when it affects God, a limited range.

I'm not sure what most of this has to do with the points I made in my previous post... Seems like a bunch of tangents and strawmen. Not arsed getting into a debate on it, my central point is that priests and scientists are completely different, and comparing faith in a religion to confidence in the scientific community is an easy charge to make, but it fails on every level.

sandmanporto

It's almost like discovering cells make tissues, tissues make organs, organs make individuals. The question is what the f*ck did all this come out of! What existed before the big bang! Jesus life is a mystery! HA

sandmanporto

Ah here religion is man made. There are things man will never know about the universe; so why follow a religion made by man!

Pushtrak

sandmanporto wrote: »

Ah here religion is man made. There are things man will never know about the universe; so why follow a religion made by man!

Because gods don't make religions. Or, in my mind, universes. Well, maybe they would, if they could get over the obstacle of non-existence.

Judgement Day

It's an 'almighty' waste of time and money which won't produce a single tangible benefit for mankind - scientists are like engineers and they just love spending money on the latest gadgets/experiments etc. The Large Hadron Collider is to Science what Sean Scully is to Art - a load of bollocks. If the same money and brains were devoted to something useful in the medical field but then that's not so sexy. I heard some ****ing eejit on TV tonight saying that maybe these experiments could lead to time travel - ffs! The ****ing Large Hadron Collider should meet the same fate as the e voting machines.

brimal

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's an 'almighty' waste of time and money which won't produce a single tangible benefit for mankind - scientists are like engineers and they just love spending money on the latest gadgets/experiments etc. The Large Hadron Collider is to Science what Sean Scully is to Art - a load of bollocks. If the same money and brains were devoted to something useful in the medical field but then that's not so sexy. I heard some ****ing eejit on TV tonight saying that maybe these experiments could lead to time travel - ffs! The ****ing Large Hadron Collider should meet the same fate as the e voting machines.

That is complete bollocks.

Read up on the LHC, CERN or just science in general. You sound very ignorant.

Dave!

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's an 'almighty' waste of time and money which won't produce a single tangible benefit for mankind - scientists are like engineers and they just love spending money on the latest gadgets/experiments etc. The Large Hadron Collider is to Science what Sean Scully is to Art - a load of bollocks. If the same money and brains were devoted to something useful in the medical field but then that's not so sexy. I heard some ****ing eejit on TV tonight saying that maybe these experiments could lead to time travel - ffs! The ****ing Large Hadron Collider should meet the same fate as the e voting machines.

...he says while posting on the internet, developed at Cern, using a computer running on electronics, a result of unguided fundamental research.

Gotta love irony.

Captain Darling

All this is of no conCERN to me.

Geddit?

*gets coat*

Corkfeen

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's an 'almighty' waste of time and money which won't produce a single tangible benefit for mankind - scientists are like engineers and they just love spending money on the latest gadgets/experiments etc. The Large Hadron Collider is to Science what Sean Scully is to Art - a load of bollocks. If the same money and brains were devoted to something useful in the medical field but then that's not so sexy. I heard some ****ing eejit on TV tonight saying that maybe these experiments could lead to time travel - ffs! The ****ing Large Hadron Collider should meet the same fate as the e voting machines.

Never heard of spinoff inventions, I take it?

sandmanporto

Pushtrak wrote: »

Because gods don't make religions. Or, in my mind, universes. Well, maybe they would, if they could get over the obstacle of non-existence.

HAHAHA.. Well matter has mass obviously and can be weighted but light ultraviolet etc does not have mass etc. The human soul perhaps exist in the form of an un measurable wavelenght ! Who knows. Unproven until proven non existent. But Religion: Boll@x!:cool: