Proof of 'God particle' found

Scioch

Pushtrak wrote: »

What they found is a higgs boson, they just aren't sure if it is the higgs boson. They'll be doing more testing, and hopefully we'll know more as time goes on. Though at the end of the year, they'll be closing the LHC for 20 months to upgrade it.

So are there different types of higgs bosons ? Are they unsure if this higgs boson is an fundamental higgs boson as fit the standard model complete or a sub particle that makes up the higgs boson ?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

That's not true. There is grounding for it. Insofar as finite things don't generally come from nothing. That's a valid reason as delad brought up.

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

shizz

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.

My point was that "time" is an attribute of the Universe so how can something "begin" from outside of it when there is no "time"?

As someone else pointed out. When you measure how long the universe has been around for you are using "time" to do this. So how can you measure before the Universe using "time" when it is a part of the Universe.

Cú Giobach

shizz wrote: »

My point was that "time" is an attribute of the Universe so how can something "begin" from outside of it when there is no "time"?

As someone else pointed out. When you measure how long the universe has been around for you are using "time" to do this. So how can you measure before the Universe using "time" when it is a part of the Universe.

There are no such things as time, before, after, nothing or something.
Therefore your argument is invalid.

A comment I've often made in the pub when discussing these matters

delad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The current scientific consensus is that the laws of physics we currently know of came into being at the event we have poorly terms the "Big Bang". If someone wants to establish that something like "Time" existed "before" that point then the onus of proof is on them, not me. Anyone touting the "First cause" argument has the onus of proof, not the rest of us.

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Time is a part of this universe interwoven with space itself. Pre Big Bang this universe didnt exist. So we have no reason to believe time did. Even spacetime wasnt created at the instant of the big bang time would be 0 as there would have been infinite gravity. Either way you look at it time couldnt exist.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

If you're going to claim it is, I'd like to see good reason with links and citations as to why you think that. I'm more than happy to consider it. By links and citations, I mean independent scientific material rather than atheistic interpretation of scientific material. They aren't the same thing.

My main point was, given what we do know about the universe to claim that those who believe in a Creator God are stupid is a little off. I'm skeptical of claims that there is no possible grounding for a Creator insofar as there are groups of scientists including plenty of physicists who would clearly advocate the existence of God.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

What evidence would satisfy you? You could google "Did time start with the big bang" and see what results you get. You could watch the video I linked in my last post.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/universe.html

Is the universe infinite in space and time?

The question of whether the universe has boundaries in time and space has captivated the imagination of mankind since early times. Some would say the universe had existed forever, while others would say that the universe was created and thus had a beginning in time and space. The second thesis immediately raises the question what exists beyond its temporal and spatial bounds. Could it be nothingness? But then, what is nothingness? The absence of matter, or the absence of space and time itself? The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) dealt intensively with this question. In his book Critique of Pure Reason he came to the conclusion that the question cannot be answered reliably within the limits of human knowledge, since thesis and antithesis are equally valid. Kant thought instead of time and space as fundamental aspects of human perception.

Big Bang - the birth of our universe.

Fast forward: Despite Kant's doubts thereto, it appears that modern cosmology has answered the above question. The universe we can observe is finite. It has a beginning in space and time, before which the concept of space and time has no meaning, because spacetime itself is a property of the universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began about twelve to fifteen billion years ago in a violent explosion. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe was an infinitely dense and infinitely hot fireball. A peculiar form of energy that we don't know yet, suddenly pushed out the fabric of spacetime in a process called "inflation", which lasted for only one millionth of a second. Thereafter, the universe continued to expand but not nearly as quickly. The process of phase transition formed out the most basic forces in nature: first gravity, then the strong nuclear force, followed by the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. After the first second, the universe was made up of fundamental energy and particles like quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and other less familiar particles.

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. Instead, radiation (light, X rays, and radio waves) dominated the early universe. Following the radiation era, atoms were formed by nuclei linking up with free electrons and thus matter slowly became dominant over energy. It took 200 million years until irregularities in the primordial gas began to form galaxies and early stars out of pockets of gas condensing by virtue of gravity. The Sun of our solar system was formed out of such a pocket of gas in a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy roughly five billion years ago. A vast disk of gas and debris swirling around the early Sun gave birth to the planets, including Earth, which is between 4.6 and 4.5 billion years old. This is -in short- the history of our universe according to the Big Bang theory, which constitutes today's most widely accepted cosmological viewpoint.

Time beginning at the big bang is widely accepted.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Time is not fixed and can speed up, slow down or stop, time slows down in a strong gravitational field and stops in the infinite gravity of a singularity, the big bang started from a singularity of infinite density, therefore time could not exist before the BB.

delad

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

shizz

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

Of course we would? Because we are within the Universe. Therefore time has an effect on us and everything else in the Universe.

shizz

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

It may make them our "God" in a sense. But would it make them the God that all of the major religions promote? Nope.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

See your skepticism on things like "did time start with the big bang"? and other questions. Well, asking questions is good. Looking for answers. My answer to the above is "I don't know what is possible. I know that an interventionist deity as described in any holy text is highly improbable".

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

I'm not sure how many people on this forum would believe in the multiverse. Perhaps some find the idea interesting. For myself, I haven't really looked in to the science behind it, so couldn't say anything regarding its validity. I guess you could say I'm agnostic on the issue.

As for the hypothetical you pose, well, there doesn't sound to be a way of demonstrating such a thing were it to be the case. By the way you have phrased that, yes, I suppose they would. But, here is the kicker. You can't prove or disprove that. So why would you live your life around it? It is based on faith. It is based on not asking questions but jumping on to a belief so as you will have a non-answer instead of having open questions.

The open questions are a lot fewer now than they would have been 100 years, 200 years or so on.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

Start reading up on the likes of relativity. There are things in our own universe for which both time and distance are nonexistant.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

We left the world of classical physics behind over a century ago.

If you're going to claim it is, I'd like to see good reason with links and citations as to why you think that. I'm more than happy to consider it. By links and citations.

Google is your friend, I am not going to teach you about relativity or quantum mechanics, if you genuinely want to know about the subjects and consequently enable yourself to have a discussion on them, it is quite easy using a search engine to get yourself started.
Though here is a little taster,
Lesson #1. Forget everything you think you know about the nature of reality.

My main point was, given what we do know about the universe to claim that those who believe in a Creator God are stupid is a little off. I'm skeptical of claims that there is no possible grounding for a Creator insofar as there are groups of scientists including plenty of physicists who would clearly advocate the existence of God.

A person having a stupid belief does not imply that that person is stupid, misguided or ill-informed yes, but stupid? not necessarily.

I mean independent scientific material rather than atheistic interpretation of scientific material. They aren't the same thing.

What do a persons beliefs or lack of got to do with interpreting scientific results?
Atheist measures time slowing in a strong gravitational field at a set rate, conclusion, time doesn't exist in infinite gravity. PS there is no god.
Christian measures time slowing in a strong gravitational field at a set rate, conclusion, time doesn't exist in infinite gravity. PS there is a god.

Pushtrak

New video:

philologos

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

In respect to the topic at hand I find it peculiar that many people have latched onto this particular discovery in order to say that it nullifies God's existence, when it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort:

The Higgs particle was thought up in the 1960’s, and the ideas were contributed by several theorists including Peter Higgs himself, who works at Edinburgh. The goal was to provide a means by which the particles that make up the universe – electrons, protons and so on – can have mass. Otherwise, everything would be massless and travel always at the speed of light, which would make for a very dull universe.

The Higgs particle is a manifestation of the “Higgs field”, which pervades all of space and “clings” to all the other particles. This effect slows them down and gives them their various masses, depending on how strongly the particles interact with the Higgs field. An electron is relatively light because its interaction with the Higgs field is not very strong – other particles have stronger interactions and are heavier.

So, although it does not actually create the other particles, the Higgs particle does give them their different masses, and this makes it possible for atoms, molecules, stars, planets and life to exist! It has been called the “God particle”, a metaphor that does not please everyone, but which does have a certain degree of suitability, given its crucial role in making the universe suitable for ordinary matter to exist, and in the end, life.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

I never said there was no god. It is just so unlikely as to be a pretty silly idea, like elephants standing on turtles.

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.
Any scientist worthy of the name would throw out a life's work without a second thought if it was proven he was incorrect (and many many have).

shizz

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

In respect to the topic at hand I find it peculiar that many people have latched onto this particular discovery in order to say that it nullifies God's existence, when it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort:

I don't think that anyone with knowledge of the Higgs Boson has claimed that it has. If anything, it has been religious people claiming that it PROVES Gods existence.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

I don't think that anyone with knowledge of the Higgs Boson has claimed that it has. If anything, it has been religious people claiming that it PROVES Gods existence.

At the start of this thread:

shopaholic01 wrote: »

They've found scientific evidence to explain the origin of the universe, therefore offering proof that it was not God's creation.

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

Pushtrak

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

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

shizz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is great that they have discovered the evidence

prinz

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?