[Closed] Higgs-Boson Announcement

will it make petrol cheap again and bikes affordable? no, so I couldnt give a monkeys

It's "A Brief History of Time" and 10million people have bought a copy.

But only 3 people bothered reading it beyond the first chapter.

"If I were a betting man, I would bet that it is the Higgs. It is very much a smoking duck that walks and quacks like the Higgs. But we now have to open it up and look inside before we can say that it is indeed the Higgs."

Hoi-Sin Boson?

2 million of the others thought it was a rustic cookbook with a forward by Hugh Fearnley-****tinstall: "A Brief History of Thyme"

[img] [/img]

Did you know the idea of our forefathers believing the earth was flat is largely a myth btw? No one educated has believed in a flat earth for 2000 years.

Didn't China think it was up until relatively recently? Or is my brain making that up?

[img] [/img]

Wikipedia would agree with you.

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

with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat

No one educated has believed in a flat earth for 2000 years.

Define "educated". Educated according to modern scientific standards? According to the church? The tea party?

This.

Just how many peasants were educated 1066?

So we're discussing the merit of a statement ('no one educated has believed...in 2000 years') which was made in response to a statement ('scientists were right that the earth isn't flat') ignoring the fact the 1st statement is only relevant if scientists only came into existence in the past 2000 years and no earlier?

Nice [i]tangent[/i].
(All [i]THAT[/i] for a [i]PUN?[/i] Madness)

So, to sum up....

...some physics geeks made a mind model of "The Universe" then some scientists made some measurements and found it "didn't add up"..

..so, the geeks invented some imaginary stuff, they called it dark matter and dark energy....

..then some scientists showed that the mysterious imaginary stuff still didn't add up...

...so the geeks made up a particle, and spent 45 years and quadrillions of Euros trying to find it...

And lo, they travelled to a deep cave and didst chance upon a mysterious pattern in the aether, lookst upon it and declared it to be a sign of a go(o)d particle, and they didst name it Higgs, and all was well........

...was it bollocks 😆

Dr Pippa Wells, a member of the Atlas experiment, said

several of the decay paths already showed deviations from what one would expect of the Standard Model Higgs.
For example, a decay path where the Higgs transforms into two photon particles was "a bit on the high side"
These could get back into line as more statistics are added, but on the other hand, they may not

OK SQT (Stupid Question Time)
As I understand it, they've suspected this particle existed for some time. Now they "know" it exists, what will it allow them to "do"?
Anything? or is it all about the academics being able to prove stuff?

So this particle they've discovered is very heavy, it will be no use for making bikes with then. But ships could have smaller anchors.

Now they "know" it exists, what will it allow them to "do"?

Practically? Nothing.

Very good introduction to Higgs [url= http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/why-the-higgs-particle-matters/ ]Here[/url]

Practically? Nothing.

They would know the standard model is true

Practically? Nothing

Very good introduction to Higgs Here

If you managed somehow to decrease the mass of the electron, and you’d find atoms would grow larger, and much more fragile. Reduce the electron’s mass by more than a factor of a thousand or so, and atoms would be so delicate that even the leftover heat from the Big Bang that launched our universe could break them apart.

How convenient. It's almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke.

 

How convenient. It's almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke.

How convenient. It's almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke.

That's not convenient. Convenient would be if your god had then left us the bloody instruction manual and, ideally, a service guide. Like a really big Haynes.

as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke

There is no reason to think that, as you know, because it has been explained to you many times.

Odd that you repeatedly pretend that it hasn't.

Convenient would be if your god had then left us the bloody instruction manual and, ideally, a service guide. Like a really big Haynes.

It's far more fun/interesting to find out all this stuff using science rather than just reading a manual.

Anyway, most people never read the instructions anyway. Especially blokes. We just fiddle about with things to see what's what.

Wouldn't it be great if in the end, after all these extensive multi-gazzillion quid mega-experiments, a load of white coated boffins came out and said : "well.... it was 42 after all"

Please God, make this happen

[img] [/img]

thepurist - Member
<geek>
If they've found Higgs it's potentially massive.
</geek>

Or very small. It's taken some finding.

All this has given me a hardon too, and that'll take some finding as well 🙁

Wouldn't it be great if in the end, after all these extensive multi-gazzillion quid mega-experiments, a load of white coated boffins came out and said : "well.... it was 42 after all"

Why would that be "great"?

Now they "know" it exists, what will it allow them to "do"?

Knock on effect. A theory that assumes the Higgs exists now can be used to underpin other theories etc. Thus leading to "actual" gains.

Now they "know" it exists, what will it allow them to "do"?

Get funding to study the Higgs boson particle.

It's almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke

Your right now I wonder what created the creator ...was that another designer or another fluke...they never explain that bit do they [ please dont mistake that as an invitation to do so]

Ok. If you don't already know the story, read up on how Mendeleyev came up with the periodic table.

Now - particle physicists have their own equivalent of the periodic table, called the Standard Model. It fits everything we know, and also predicts new particles that have not been seen, much like the periodic table did for elements. It can predict their properties too.

If they find all these other particles, they'll be a lot more confident that they actually know what everything is really made of. Quite important, if you want to enjoy sh*t from sci-fi novels in the future.

"Your right now I wonder what created the creator ...was that another designer or another fluke...they never explain that bit do they"

Nop... You are going to have to wait, just like the rest of us, for the next "aliens" film

as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke

There is no reason to think that, as you know, because it has been explained to you many times.

Odd that you repeatedly pretend that it hasn't.

Can't have been a very convincing explanation I suppose.

So, there was an infinite number of 'Big Bang' events that all failed to sustain a universe, until the latest one that had precisely the correct balance of every single thing needed ... ?

Or, the universe is a 'steady state' thing that's always existed and had no beginning?

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I've yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

scratch that I'm really not interested in helping this evolve into a religion thread

If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

Does that preclude it evolving anywhere else?

I've yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

It's fortunate, then, the universe does not require your conviction.

I've said this before but, just because something is difficult to explain, or difficult to understand, does not not make it incorrect.

intervention? WTF? Like aliens and stuff?

Ok Questions
1) What is an old bloke doing playing around with a hadron in front of some students?
2) Why hasn’t Coxy get hold of that Bassoon yet and cracked out “his” tune?
3) Where is Tony Blair when you need him?
4) Will we now need a LHC wrapped around the earth to expand the project?
5) How many calories does this Haagan Dazs thingumybob hold and will it be allowed in the iDave Diet?

God has an SLA on questions by the way folks, has to answer a call every 90sec’s and if he can’t answer your query, passes it on to his superior.

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So hypothetically, it could actually be 42, Couldn't it?

joao3v16, There is no reason to suppose that a universe with the properties that we can observe is any more "designed" than any other variation. If you posit design, you also have to explain what created (or "designed") the designer. Something you and your fellow religionists have consistently failed to do.

There is no evidence of a "designer" manifesting itself in our universe, where cause and effect without intervention by an outside influence are evident. A universe with an unmanifest "designer", looks exactly the same as a complete [i]absence[/i] of a "designer".

That you believe in an unmanifest "designer" despite the absence of any sign of such, is strange, but not very interesting.

And as the thread skews towards all the usual religious twiffle, I take my leave.

(incidentally, are you seriously positing 'god did it' as an acceptable explanation, half an hour after pulling up science for being too convenient?)

[url= http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-discovery-of-new-sub-atomic-particle/ ]Call me Dave finds it..[/url]

There is no evidence of a "designer" manifesting itself in our universe

Are you just saying that because there wasn't a specific font?

How convenient. It's almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke.

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I've yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Well............

The big bang happened a very long time ago.

That residual heat has been cooling down for a very long time (well, the energy's being dispersed so the overall effect is things get colder).

And there are plenty of places in the universe where these conditions still aren't right for atoms to be stable, the sun for instance! It's quite easy even in a school lab to create conditions where you remove all the electrons from an atom, infact water is something like 1x10-14 parts hydrogen nuclei (i.e. protons).

The universe is a very big place, the odds of anything not happening are slim. Now we just need to wait for a Sperm Whale to spontaneously come into existance and fall out of the sky.

Are you just saying that because there wasn't a specific font?

And as the thread skews towards all the usual religious twiffle, I take my leave.

Seeya.....

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I've yet to be co[u]n[/u]vinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Anthropic Principle 🙂

Mr Woppit - Member
......If you posit [s]design[/s] the Big Bang, you also have to explain what [s]created (or "designed")[/s]came before the [s]designer[/s]Bang . Something you and your fellow re[s]lig[/s]ductionists have consistently failed to do.

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

"You can't yet explain what happened before the beginning of the universe and time. Ha! Clearly it must be God."

🙄

Same tired old nonsense.

Because we don't know what caused the Big Bang, there is no reason to suppose that a god did it.

We simply don't know. That is the scientific and rational response.

The religious response is: We don't know what caused the Big Bang, therefore a god did it.

The first is self evident, the second is just stupid.

I know, I know - I'm just going ...

I think you'll find it's the flying pasta monster (the spaghetti monster was on leave)

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

A universe with an unmanifest "designer", looks exactly the same as a complete absence of a "designer".

So how do science-ists know they're not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there's no "designer" just because it doesn't look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There's so much we don't understand, yet we're convinced it isn't all deliberate?

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I've yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Backwards reasoning.

It is not remarkable that all these constants are exactly right for the universe in which we life. Because if they weren't, we would never have evolved to end up sitting here talking about it.

It might've happened a quidzillion times before with the wrong values, and we would never have been able to consider it. So of course the one with the right values is the one we live in. It's inevitable innit.

So how do science-ists know they're not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there's no "designer" just because it doesn't look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There's so much we don't understand, yet we're convinced it isn't all deliberate?

yet we're convinced it isn't all deliberate?

What if everybody's wrong? Surely that's the most likely scenario?

A universe with an unmanifest "designer", looks exactly the same as a complete absence of a "designer".

So how do science-ists know they're not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there's no "designer" just because it doesn't look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There's so much we don't understand, yet we're convinced it isn't all deliberate?

There is no evidence of a "designer" manifesting itself in our universe

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

You don't seem to have? Are you unique?

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as [b]we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing[/b].

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

The thing is, we're working on it.

He's right, "conformal cyclic cosmology" (CCC) is a possibility being studied.
Although, that's kind a like saying the Bang wasn't so Big after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869

GrahamS - Member

"You can't yet explain what happened before the beginning of the universe and time. Ha! Clearly it must be God." 🙄

yeah, roll your squitty little eyes man, it really helps your rationalist case 😆

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"
So, listen to an establishment authority figure whose polemic can't actually be backed up in "everyday language" it's all pretty much down to personal choice whether you follow the one with the white coat or the pointy hat .....

who'd a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"

That you believe in an unmanifest "designer" despite the absence of any sign of such, is strange, but not very interesting.

Like designer stubble.

I want a teleport so make that happens otherwise it makes no sense to me ... 🙄

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"

Well except the "physicologists" generally come up with theories then design experiments which test those theories, and make predictions based on theoretical models then conduct projects like the LHC to test the actual outcomes. And then revise those theories based on observable evidence.

Whereas most religionists just sort of shrug after they get to the theory stage.

scuzz - Member
What's wrong with 'We're not sure'? I hear that one a lot

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

Must try this "We're not sure" (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting 😆

So how do science-ists know they're not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there's no "designer" just because it doesn't look like there was?

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

Must try this "We're not sure" (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting

Would it be research if the answers were already known and proven?

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

Lolz.

Well, proper scientists (ie not these twerps) are fully aware that there might be a god causing it all. And that there's no way to refute or confirm that. In fact, some of them are actually believers themselves.

It's fairly easy to make a good argument that the bible is not correct in terms of the origin of the earth. However the existence or otherwise of a god in any form is moot because it's absolutely unproveable.

Even if the clouds rolled back and a white haired old bloke introduced himself, we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.

scuzz - Member
That's exactly the point! Do you have any idea how we can objectively study what was going on 'before' the Big Bang? Me neither. Until someone figures it out, it's a 'we're not sure'

When it does become an objective evidential study it will be Science, until then it's Speculation.
It's typical of the current Scientific Arrogance that presumes every aspect of our existence is explainable by reductionist analysis.
Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say "We really don't know beyond a certain 'timepoint' what the nature of physical existence was, so let's just leave it as a known unknown"

(ie not these twerps)

...so let's just leave it as a known unknown

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

Oooh.. can I use it again? 🙄

we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.

Surely God [i]is[/i] an alien, since by definition she is an extraterrestrial?

Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say "We really don't know beyond a certain 'timepoint' what the nature of physical existence was, so let's just leave it as a known unknown"

That sounds like an excellent approach to furthering our knowledge.
The "Here be dragons" approach.

who'd a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?

FWIW - graham link up the dara clip again

Why are you feeding the troll folks?

dara clip? please share

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

Its not so much life not existing as basic chemistry not being possible. But then if there wasn't basic chemistry we wouldn't be around to question it all. This is the Anthropic Principle others have mentioned

As we gain a deeper understanding of the how it all fits together we may find that these "constants" of nature are actually derived from each other such that it would be impossible for the universe to exist in another way.

We don't know yet though.

The important thing to remember is science is built upon models and theories. These theories are contstantly tested and improved upon or discarded.

Newtons celestial mechanics is an acceptable model of how large objects such as planets interact under the influence of gravity. Its good enough to put men on the moon and send probes to other planets. But its not correct, it can't account for fluctuations in the orbit of Mercury for instance, however a better theory of gravity - Relativity - can.

The standard model will probably prove the same. At the moment it is a very good model for predicting the behaviour of sub atomic particles but its not the end. Science isn't finished with the discovery of the Higgs.

I'm not sure given this approach that not knowing something can be seen as a failure if this leads to better understanding in the future. Surely its a better approach than just to call all the gaps "God" and leave it there.

Edit: richmtb puts it far better than I can 🙂

This one?

(Relevant quote from 1:48)

[i]"Get in the 'kin sack!"[/i] 😆

🙂
get in the sack