Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The search for the God Particle is over

cern lhc rolf heuer

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16    WilliamW

WilliamW

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • Heal The Beast

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:38 PM

View PostSumer, on 05 June 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

be more specific

Yep...I edited...is that 'more specific'?

View PostWilliamW, on 05 June 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

What was 'responsible' for the Big Bang was at least one other thing reacting with the thing that we know about and are within.  The reaction caused a ripple effect.  This universe is a product of interaction causing reaction.  (((@)))

This 'at least one other thing' had to have come from OUTSIDE of the known physical universe in order to have created the initial reaction.  If it was merely a spontaneous mystical happening then such happenings would be evident throughout nature...they are not.  All happenings can be sourced to reactions.  Every other thing that has happened INCLUDING the Big Bang has been and is a REACTION to the initial action.



#17    Sumer

Sumer

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2012

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:44 PM

View PostWilliamW, on 05 June 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Yep...I edited...is that 'more specific'?

ahh... the ad hoc thingy


#18    WilliamW

WilliamW

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • Heal The Beast

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:27 PM

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Much of Ad hoc hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hochypothesis was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

View PostSumer, on 05 June 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

ahh... the ad hoc thingy

Nope.  not the 'ad hoc thingy'  That sounds more like a cover explanation (in good old Latin to give it even more 'authority') for that which science knows it cannot hope to discover - knows this is true - but needs funding for all its other grand schemes and since it knows that something does not come from nothing, cannot pull those funds from out its own ****.

What 'IT' is ~ is that which comes before the known provable equation. To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.  The Big Bang is the equal 'and opposite' reaction and while these 'laws' concern themselves with observing physical reaction, the BIG BANG is also a physical reaction (perhaps confused with being the source of the reaction) but is not the source but the initial reaction to the source or first cause.

Whatever the other component is, cannot obviously be observed by anything within the continuing result (universe) of the initial interaction of at least two different elements.  One which we know about and the other which remains a mystery.
That it remains a mystery, (cannot be falsified) does not amount to 'ad hoc' but rather, it amounts to actually existing and can be acknowledge thus.  To say otherwise is to deny the fundamental laws of action and reaction.

It is not a 'theory' it is FACT.  Without it - this 'other thing', then this particular universe would not exist as we understand it...the BIG BANG would not have happened.  

The so-called 'God Particle' merely represents the very first 'thing' which occurred at the very moment the interaction took place...it can never represent 'the thing which created this universe' but only the first physical manifestation of the interaction of at least two different things.  One we know the other we know not - at least cannot know scientifically.  That is the wall over which physical science cannot see beyond, and falsely claims as 'ad hoc' ...like assigning 'subconscious' to that which cannot be explained any further BY science.  (well it can but it is just a 'place' to hold that which holds know immediate financial value or profit in pursuing) Science is used by those  interested in what can be profited in the material, be these bombs or replacement limbs...and there is no point in discovering how to turn any substance into gold...no profit in that.  :)  So how science is used falls short of how it actually can be used...in all honesty.  


#19    Sumer

Sumer

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2012

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:43 PM

View PostWilliamW, on 05 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[1] Much of Ad hoc hypotheses are not necessarily incorrect, however. An interesting example of an apparently supported ad hochypothesis was Albert Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to general relativity in order to allow a static universe. Although he later referred to it as his "greatest blunder," it has been found to correspond quite well to the theories of dark energy.[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc



Nope.  not the 'ad hoc thingy'  That sounds more like a cover explanation (in good old Latin to give it even more 'authority') for that which science knows it cannot hope to discover - knows this is true - but needs funding for all its other grand schemes and since it knows that something does not come from nothing, cannot pull those funds from out its own ****.

What 'IT' is ~ is that which comes before the known provable equation. To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.  The Big Bang is the equal 'and opposite' reaction and while these 'laws' concern themselves with observing physical reaction, the BIG BANG is also a physical reaction (perhaps confused with being the source of the reaction) but is not the source but the initial reaction to the source or first cause.

Whatever the other component is, cannot obviously be observed by anything within the continuing result (universe) of the initial interaction of at least two different elements.  One which we know about and the other which remains a mystery.
That it remains a mystery, (cannot be falsified) does not amount to 'ad hoc' but rather, it amounts to actually existing and can be acknowledge thus.  To say otherwise is to deny the fundamental laws of action and reaction.

It is not a 'theory' it is FACT.  Without it - this 'other thing', then this particular universe would not exist as we understand it...the BIG BANG would not have happened.  

The so-called 'God Particle' merely represents the very first 'thing' which occurred at the very moment the interaction took place...it can never represent 'the thing which created this universe' but only the first physical manifestation of the interaction of at least two different things.  One we know the other we know not - at least cannot know scientifically.  That is the wall over which physical science cannot see beyond, and falsely claims as 'ad hoc' ...like assigning 'subconscious' to that which cannot be explained any further BY science.  (well it can but it is just a 'place' to hold that which holds know immediate financial value or profit in pursuing) Science is used by those  interested in what can be profited in the material, be these bombs or replacement limbs...and there is no point in discovering how to turn any substance into gold...no profit in that.  :)  So how science is used falls short of how it actually can be used...in all honesty.  

the Universe was always here

since energy and matter and space are infinite in their existence , hence so is the Universe

there is no first cause , there is no need , at all

Edited by Sumer, 05 June 2012 - 10:49 PM.


#20    Sumer

Sumer

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2012

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:56 PM

if the BB were true then somewhere in the Universe there is a point , an area of space , devoid of energy and matter, three dimensionally

completely and absolutely


#21    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:08 AM

View PostWilliamW, on 05 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

The so-called 'God Particle' merely represents the very first 'thing' which occurred at the very moment the interaction took place...it can never represent 'the thing which created this universe' but only the first physical manifestation of the interaction of at least two different things.  
No it doesn't. It represents a quantization of an as-yet hypothetical scalar field that imbues quarks, leptons, and weak nuclear force bosons with mass.

Apart from the unfortunate name, it isn't really anymore exotic than, say, the photon (a quantization of a complex Abelian field that imbues quarks, leptons, and some bosons with electric charge) or the gluon (a quantization of a vector field that imbues quarks and other gluons with color).

View PostSumer, on 05 June 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

if the BB were true then somewhere in the Universe there is a point , an area of space , devoid of energy and matter, three dimensionally

completely and absolutely
No, the big bang theory does not imply that at all.


#22    WilliamW

WilliamW

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • Heal The Beast

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:49 AM



The so-called 'God Particle' merely represents the very first 'thing' which occurred at the very moment the interaction took place...it can never represent 'the thing which created this universe' but only the first physical manifestation of the interaction of at least two different things.  

No it doesn't. It represents a quantization of an as-yet hypothetical scalar field that imbues quarks, leptons, and weak nuclear force bosons with mass.

Well to the average tax payer the story has been simplified - "they are looking to find the beginning of the universe in a particle.  The very first thing to become"  That is how the press generalizes for the purpose of keeping the simple tax-payer interested.  
Whatever 'they are looking for' does not negate my assertions regarding the Big Bang as being a product of at least two different things (one of which we know of) interacting to cause the effect.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Scalar_field


#23    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:44 AM

View PostWilliamW, on 06 June 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Whatever 'they are looking for' does not negate my assertions regarding the Big Bang as being a product of at least two different things (one of which we know of) interacting to cause the effect.
In as much as one can claim that the laws of cause and effect hold outside our Universe, I have no problem with your assertion.

But what you speak of isn't anything that the LHC is looking for.


#24    WilliamW

WilliamW

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • Heal The Beast

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:48 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 06 June 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

In as much as one can claim that the laws of cause and effect hold outside our Universe, I have no problem with your assertion.

But what you speak of isn't anything that the LHC is looking for.

Of course not!  As explained, what I speak of cannot be found using physical science - it is a wall that cannot be breached through this science.
However, ask the run of the mill taxpayer (who might have an interest in or know about the LHC project) and they will tell you that according to their information, the project is looking for the primary particle (or words to that effect).  
I guess it keeps scientists etc off the dole and doing things they like to do, but it won't benefit the "ordinary garden variety taxpayer" who helps pay for these type projects, whatever the LHC is studying.

http://en.wikipedia....Hadron_Collider

http://www.wired.com...llider_excerpt/






Also tagged with cern, lhc, rolf heuer

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users