Scientists to unveil proof of ‘God particle’

[bobcollum]

Hints of the Higgs boson detected last year by a US "atom smasher" have become even stronger, scientists have said.

The news comes amid fevered speculation about an announcement by researchers at the Large Hadron Collider on Wednesday.

Finding the particle would fill a glaring hole in the widely accepted theory of how the Universe works.

BBC News - US sees stronger hints of Higgs

 

[bobcollum]

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found

GENEVA (AP) — Physicists say they have all but proven that the "God particle" exists. They have a footprint and a shadow, and the only thing left is to see for themselves the elusive subatomic particle believed to give all matter in the universe size and shape.

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found - Businessweek

 

[Peach]

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found

GENEVA (AP) — Physicists say they have all but proven that the "God particle" exists. They have a footprint and a shadow, and the only thing left is to see for themselves the elusive subatomic particle believed to give all matter in the universe size and shape.

APNewsBreak: Evidence of 'God particle' found - Businessweek

Still just hints however. Interesting, but no comments from me, yet.

 

[Oddball]

Been posted at Yay-hoo snooz for hours now, and nobody has picked up on this one?

This is as big as the, well, big bang theory: Scientists working at the world's largest atom smasher say they have enough evidence of the long-sought-after Higgs boson.

To the layman, the Higgs boson is the "God particle" and a key puzzle piece in the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. Physicists around the globe—and perhaps elsewhere, given the size of the universe—have invested billions of dollars in research and have been hunting for the Higgs boson for decades.

<snip>

The Higgs boson appeared 13.7 billion years ago in the chaos of the Big Bang and turned the flying debris into galaxies, stars and planets.

Its formal discovery, according to a broad scientific consensus, would be the greatest advance in knowledge of the universe in decades...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/scientists-unveil-proof-god-particle-165431909.html

Anyone?

Beuller?

 

[Mr. H.]

The theory of its existence has been around for some time. Proof of its existence merely gives credence to calculations and computations. Next up- theories about the HB's action, interaction, purpose, and place in the scheme of the material universe.

To what end?

 

[Mr. H.]

Here's a good read about supersymmetry.

How the Discovery of the Higgs Boson Could Break Physics | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[bobcollum]

Merge it with my thread, Mr Mod.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/232220-us-sees-stronger-hints-of-higgs.html

Or merge mine with this one, I don't care.

Or don't do anything at all, whatever.

 

[bobcollum]

Watch a Livestream of the Higgs Boson Announcement Tonight | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Been posted at Yay-hoo snooz for hours now, and nobody has picked up on this one?

This is as big as the, well, big bang theory: Scientists working at the world's largest atom smasher say they have enough evidence of the long-sought-after Higgs boson.

To the layman, the Higgs boson is the "God particle" and a key puzzle piece in the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. Physicists around the globe&#8212;and perhaps elsewhere, given the size of the universe&#8212;have invested billions of dollars in research and have been hunting for the Higgs boson for decades.

<snip>

The Higgs boson appeared 13.7 billion years ago in the chaos of the Big Bang and turned the flying debris into galaxies, stars and planets.

Its formal discovery, according to a broad scientific consensus, would be the greatest advance in knowledge of the universe in decades...

Scientists to unveil proof of

Anyone?

Beuller?

Have some respect! Andy Griffith passed away.

------------------------------------------

Rush to be first like FOX News and CNN?

Heard it earlier on NPR or LA television-liberal media. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr452_2012.pdf. When will you come out against those evil liberal scientists messing with god?

 

[bobcollum]

Higgs Boson announcement from Cern: as it happened - Telegraph

 

[Sunni Man]

Great explanation of Higgs Boson

The Higgs boson made simple - Cosmic Log

 

[Cowman]

CERN Press Release


I just now read about it. Great stuff.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hints of the Higgs boson detected last year by a US "atom smasher" have become even stronger, scientists have said.

The news comes amid fevered speculation about an announcement by researchers at the Large Hadron Collider on Wednesday.

Finding the particle would fill a glaring hole in the widely accepted theory of how the Universe works.

BBC News - US sees stronger hints of Higgs

"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction.

Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

 

[bobcollum]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

 

[dilloduck]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Blasphemer ! Science is NOTHING like theology.

 

[Cowman]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Not all the science I accept relies on belief, but anything that's still in the theoretical stage, absolutely.

Science however, in comparison to monotheistic religions, is always making progress towards proving how real it is, always finding answers once we can technologically replicate the thought experiments that lead to the theory.

Where religion has been what it is and more than likely always will be that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

1. " We base our beliefs.."

We?

You have a tapeworm?

Or were you elected speak for some group? Which one?

You're not afraid to ask for yourself, are you?


2. The author of the quotation in post #13 is Dr. David Berlinski...

"Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris."
Biography - David Berlinski


Think he might have a basis for his conclusions?


3. He has also said the following:


'As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.

Far less endearing is the manner in which many of our atheistic scientists react with sullen contempt when the religious behave in precisely the same way to speculate about that which cannot be grasped in any other way.'

You can find the quote in chapter five of "The Devil's Delusion."


Do you believe him to be incorrect?
Why?

 

[Cowman]

"That wasn't a tapeworm."

I was speaking on behalf of people who trust in the global community level of research in all sorts of scientific fields. I do have the power to speak on the behalf of all of them. Want to see my card?


And wait a second. Are you just going to give me names of scientists who are particularly fond of which share your views(and maybe strengthen them for you), and expect me to somehow also believe that simply because I personally cannot dispute what they have to say?

I don't know anything about the guy you're speaking of. What kind of praises and criticisms does he get from the larger community of scientists in his field(s)?

Oh and Quantum Mechanics. That's a great one. Do you have any idea how many actual tangible scientific breakthroughs there which have been translated into actual real world technologies? Your life probably benefits from the theories of quantum mechanics.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/topi...-world-applications-of-quantum-mechanics1.htm

Answer your own question... on why you choose to believe him, compared to the other quantum physicists in the world. Since I personally lack the degrees and knowledge involved of things such as quantum mechanics and theoretical physics, I instead choose to read the musings and findings of scientists that corporations and governments choose. People who have been shown to be true powerhouses of their fields.