Proof of 'God particle' found

AtomicHorror · 04-07-2012 08:13PM

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 · 04-07-2012 08:13PM

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 · 04-07-2012 08:15PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:01PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:03PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:04PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:08PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:30PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:32PM

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 · 04-07-2012 09:47PM

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! · 04-07-2012 10:21PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:31PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:33PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:39PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:46PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:47PM

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! · 04-07-2012 10:49PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:52PM

All this is of no conCERN to me.

Geddit?

*gets coat*

Corkfeen · 04-07-2012 10:54PM

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 · 04-07-2012 10:56PM

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:

Burt Lancaster · 04-07-2012 10:56PM

delad wrote: »

Called.

Yep. You have been.

Chavways · 04-07-2012 11:03PM

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.

:pac::pac::pac:

Judgement Day · 04-07-2012 11:10PM

Chavways wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

Well go on then, start listing them - I'm happy to stand corrected.

Chavways · 04-07-2012 11:13PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well go on then, start listing them - I'm happy to stand corrected.

For one-The Internet

And a simple Google search finds these:

semiconductor industry
sterilisation - food, medical, sewage
radiation processing
non-destructive testing
cancer therapy
incineration of nuclear waste
power generation (energy amplifier)?
source of synchrotron radiation (biology, condensed matter physics...)
source of neutrons (biology, condensed matter physics...

ArtSmart · 04-07-2012 11:15PM

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.

rofl. (THIS IS THE FUTURE YOU LAUGHING, EM, AT YOU)

Judgement Day · 04-07-2012 11:38PM

Chavways wrote: »

For one-The Internet

And a simple Google search finds these:

semiconductor industry

sterilisation - food, medical, sewage

radiation processing

non-destructive testing

cancer therapy

incineration of nuclear waste

power generation (energy amplifier)?

source of synchrotron radiation (biology, condensed matter physics...)

source of neutrons (biology, condensed matter physics...

What are you on about - these things have been as a result of the Large Hadron Collider?

ArtSmart · 04-07-2012 11:45PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

What are you on about - these things have been as a result of the Large Hadron Collider?

No, they came from the large Hagrid Collider.

Magic.

take everything · 04-07-2012 11:51PM

This could lead to some amazing discoveries in Physics, with the help of God.

ArtSmart · 04-07-2012 11:54PM

take everything wrote: »

This could lead to some amazing discoveries in Physics, with the help of God.

Hence the term....God Particle....I guess...

steddyeddy · 04-07-2012 11:55PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

What are you on about - these things have been as a result of the Large Hadron Collider?

A better understanding of physics resulted in these things.

Proof of 'God particle' found

Comments