Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Still Waters

The search for the God Particle is over

24 posts in this topic

Scientists will know by the end of this year whether the so-called God Particle exists and the Large Hadron Collider will be switched off, according to Rolf Heuer, the director of CERN.

The search to find the Higgs Boson is one of the greatest mysteries in science.

The theory is that the particle is responsible for creating the universe as we know it.

If it can be shown to exist, it will mean that man now fully understands the visible universe and can look further back into the origins of the Big Bang and unknown ‘dark energy’.

CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, are using the Large Hadron Collider, a 17 mile underground tunnel, to accelerate particles so they crash into one another and create the conditions where the Higgs Boson exists.

http://www.telegraph...le-is-over.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If it can be shown to exist, it will mean that man now fully understands the visible universe"

again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article was horrible. I sincerely believe that some ``editorial revision'' has gone into the quotes from the LHC director. What are the mistakes here? Let me count:

  1. Finding the Higg's boson almost certainly would not result in the LHC being ``switched off''. There are many, many more types of experiments that can be run at that facility. As pointed out in the article, it cost billions of dollars to build. This cost was not approved solely for research into the Higg's (although that was probably the primary reason). The LHC will almost certainly continue to operate for the next 20 years (or longer) provided valuable - but perhaps less sensational - research and discoveries.
  2. Finding the Higg's boson definitely does not mean that we will ``fully understand the visible Universe''. For one (obvious) thing, the Higg's boson only provides a theoretical explanation for imbuing particles with inertial mass - it does not explain anything about gravity.
  3. From the article: ``The theory is that the particle is responsible for creating the universe as we know it.''. Geeze. If by that the writers meant ``the theory is that the particle is a quantum manifestation of a scalar field that is responsible for imbuing weak nuclear force bosons with inertial mass after symmetry breaking from the joint electroweak force'' then I agree. But if you have to attribute one particle as being ``responsible for creating the universe as we know it'' then that particle is the photon (but it is obviously stupid to try to blame the entire Universe on just one particle).

In short, I hate articles like that, and I think they mislead the public.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the god particule has a weird name o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article was horrible. I sincerely believe that some ``editorial revision'' has gone into the quotes from the LHC director. What are the mistakes here? Let me count:

I am happy that you wrote "editorial revision". I found it akin to "artistic freedom", mostly based on ignorance on the subject at hand.

  1. Finding the Higg's boson almost certainly would not result in the LHC being ``switched off''. There are many, many more types of experiments that can be run at that facility. As pointed out in the article, it cost billions of dollars to build. This cost was not approved solely for research into the Higg's (although that was probably the primary reason). The LHC will almost certainly continue to operate for the next 20 years (or longer) provided valuable - but perhaps less sensational - research and discoveries.

Most assuredly it will still run and I am sure that it is the key to many great future discoveries, whether the Higgs Boson is found or not.

  1. Finding the Higg's boson definitely does not mean that we will ``fully understand the visible Universe''. For one (obvious) thing, the Higg's boson only provides a theoretical explanation for imbuing particles with inertial mass - it does not explain anything about gravity.

Nope. Frankly, I don't think we'll ever fully understand the visible Universe, but I would be quite happy if we could just unify Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and thereby get a better understanding of gravity and the underlying laws that governs it. But there is a looooong way to go from experimentally verifying the existence of the Higgs Boson to actually successfully merge those theories since they have a rather distinct dislike towards each others.

  1. From the article: ``The theory is that the particle is responsible for creating the universe as we know it.''. Geeze. If by that the writers meant ``the theory is that the particle is a quantum manifestation of a scalar field that is responsible for imbuing weak nuclear force bosons with inertial mass after symmetry breaking from the joint electroweak force'' then I agree. But if you have to attribute one particle as being ``responsible for creating the universe as we know it'' then that particle is the photon (but it is obviously stupid to try to blame the entire Universe on just one particle).

Says quite a bit indeed.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is they have no clue what there looking for, no one has ever seen it. They may have already found it and called it something else without even realizing. Or simply doesn't exist. However as said it would be really stupid to call it quits because they havent found it. I mean considering we've been looking for ET for what 50 years or more and we are still looking. Just sayin :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For those concerned about the LHC quitting after the end of the year: read the entire article!!!

There is a scheduled upgrade that will take 2 years to complete, requiring LHC to be shut down during that time.

Then it will be up and running again with even more capabilities. So, relax.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But if you have to attribute one particle as being ``responsible for creating the universe as we know it'' then that particle is the photon (but it is obviously stupid to try to blame the entire Universe on just one particle).

Then what can we blame?

Edited by StarMountainKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what can we blame?

Hmmm... how about two particles? That makes it a conspiracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate this search. what a waste of money. i'm sorry but the moment i learned what the "God Particle" was, i lost a little bit of respect for physicists. and that's a bummer because i respect physicists more than anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sorry but the moment i learned what the "God Particle" was, i lost a little bit of respect for physicists.

May I ask why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate this search. what a waste of money. i'm sorry but the moment i learned what the "God Particle" was, i lost a little bit of respect for physicists. and that's a bummer because i respect physicists more than anything

Im puzzled, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this shows that big-bang theorists show no bounds in proving there theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by WilliamW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. (((@)))

be more specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be more specific

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

ahh... the ad hoc thingy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Scalar_field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/collider_excerpt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.