Proof of 'God particle' found

granturismo

How much will it cost to find out who made the atomic particles that produced the Higgs boson particle?

Nothingbetter2d

johnwest288 wrote: »

JASUS, this is mad.......

So what do we do now?

Was it worth the investment?

now we build zero point modules and build flying city spaceships called atlantis

opinion guy

Why is this thread about religion ???

RobbingBandit

It all makes sense now, these guys are going to be in a rush to finish before Christmas this year and they will kill us all on December 21st.

Nothingbetter2d

opinion guy wrote: »

Why is this thread about religion ???

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

prinz

opinion guy wrote: »

Why is this thread about religion ???

Because the god botherers and bible bashers came along and shoved it down everyone's throat.....oh wait no.

py2006

I don't know what all this means?

Nulty

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you know what a theory is?

Oh, and gravity is a theory, music is a theory, atomic theory? Could go on...

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

Duckworth_Luas

py2006 wrote: »

I don't know what all this means?

To put if simply, the President misplaced his buffalo and lots of scientist chaps were employed to find it. At long last they have tracked down Higgins' bison.

Nothingbetter2d

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

To put if simply, the President misplaced his buffalo and lots of scientist chaps were employed to find it. At long last they have tracked down Higgins' bison.

well isn't that just hunky dory?

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>