Scientists may announce discovery of Higgs Boson

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Scientists may announce discovery of Higgs Boson
« Previous Page
Aether
7/2/12 9:28:37PM

Posted by Cooler


Posted by Aether


Posted by Cooler

Okay, then where did God come from?... Richard Dawkins probably the most well known Evolutionary Biologist would have a laugh at this bunch of pseudoscience about the god particle. The God particle is not peer reviewed or a consensus in the scientific community, one scientist or two do not make an idea valid it has to be peer reviewed and if it doesn't hold up against demonstrable, verifiable testing it's tossed aside until it has actual evidence. Evolution is a fact, not just a scientific theory (which is the graduation point of an idea in science) and people need to deal with it.



No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

"The God Particle" is a term coined by the popular media, the name has absolutely nothing to do with the science being done. It's called the Higgs Boson, and it's part of the standard model of physics, it's not some kind of fringe science trying to prove the existence of God. We've been acting under the assumption that this particle exists for decades, this isn't a really big discovery. NOT finding it would be a big discovery, because it would invalidate the standard model of physics. We expected to find this particle long before we started looking for it.



I do understand that the higgs boson is trying to understand subatomic particles but it's just that, subatomic particles and nothing to do with creationism which is what my problem is with this research when they even refer it to that at all...They still put this superfluous label of god on it...Everything that this is trying to imply in the article from yahoo is that "Science had it wrong all along" and that the "Universe isn't as old as we think it is" that's the mindset this is having even if it's just research into subatomic particles, like you said trying to rile people up, not just theists.



The article doesn't say anything like that and scientists do not call it the god particle, the media does.
SmileR
7/2/12 9:35:21PM
ghandikush
7/2/12 9:38:45PM
God in this sense would be entirely philosophical and not at all necessarily conscious creator. Worship the sun the earth and the elements in that case because its as close as youre gonna get
warglory
7/2/12 10:11:45PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by warglory

I don't mean any disrespect to the OP, as the consequences of this potential discovery could very well have large ramifications, I don't know, but my opinion about the whole big bang theory is luke warm at best. Why?

Because science often shits on religion as being this untestable series of events that doesn't fit comfortably into the logic of science. I am not religious...at all, but I just find it completely hypocritical when science judges God as being imaginary, but then talks about a singular particle, floating...somewhere (because space isn't just space, it's made up of dark matter remember), and suddenly erupts, for some reason, causing rapid growth in the amount of matter, which somehow multiplied itself from a singular particle, which goes against the very essence of testable physics, into the universe we know today. All of this may be true, but the fact that scientists don't see the blatant hypocrisy in judging religion, while then openly supporting the big bang theory as if it were quantifiable fact is laughably insane.

/soapbox.



There's no hypocrisy because scientists don't talk about certainties, they talk about probabilities and they back those probabilities up with testable, verifiable data. The reason scientists believe that The Big Bang is likely is because that's exactly what all of the available data indicates happened.

The reason you think it's hypocrisy is because you have not examined the data. You can look at the research into the cosmic microwave background and its anisotropies, or the isotropic redshift of every galaxy we can see, which are both incredibly compelling pieces of evidence that our universe is and has been expanding from a very early time.

Also, if you ask any actual physicist, they will tell you that we do not know what happened at the start of The Big Bang, we only have information back to a certain amount of time, before which any physicist will tell you we simply have no clue what happened, and that the laws of physics break down at a certain point by the current understanding of the theory.

Any perceived hypocrisy is a result of your lack of understanding. Scientists back everything they say up with data which is readily available to anyone who wants to try to disprove it or offer alternate theories.



The big bang is a testable, verifiable theory? The thing thing that we can test, is that the universe is constantly expanding, but we have absolutely no clue of it's origin that can be verified. None. Science attempts to explain the origins of the ever expanding universe with philosophical physics based on theories, which is exactly what religion is. The theory that the universe is the result of an epic explosion is very reasonable based on the amount of energy it takes to form certain elements, but to come to the conclusion about the cause of that explosion is wildly inappropriate in the realm of science, because we have no way of determining that, and probably never will, yet science does that all the time with great passion and faith. I am not discounting all the work that many a scientist has extrapolated on, I just think it's ridiculous that so many scientists discount one unprovable belief for another.
kopower
7/2/12 10:24:20PM
I never would have guessed this thread would reach over 60 replies. Very interesting points brought up.
Aether
7/2/12 11:52:04PM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether


Posted by warglory

I don't mean any disrespect to the OP, as the consequences of this potential discovery could very well have large ramifications, I don't know, but my opinion about the whole big bang theory is luke warm at best. Why?

Because science often shits on religion as being this untestable series of events that doesn't fit comfortably into the logic of science. I am not religious...at all, but I just find it completely hypocritical when science judges God as being imaginary, but then talks about a singular particle, floating...somewhere (because space isn't just space, it's made up of dark matter remember), and suddenly erupts, for some reason, causing rapid growth in the amount of matter, which somehow multiplied itself from a singular particle, which goes against the very essence of testable physics, into the universe we know today. All of this may be true, but the fact that scientists don't see the blatant hypocrisy in judging religion, while then openly supporting the big bang theory as if it were quantifiable fact is laughably insane.

/soapbox.



There's no hypocrisy because scientists don't talk about certainties, they talk about probabilities and they back those probabilities up with testable, verifiable data. The reason scientists believe that The Big Bang is likely is because that's exactly what all of the available data indicates happened.

The reason you think it's hypocrisy is because you have not examined the data. You can look at the research into the cosmic microwave background and its anisotropies, or the isotropic redshift of every galaxy we can see, which are both incredibly compelling pieces of evidence that our universe is and has been expanding from a very early time.

Also, if you ask any actual physicist, they will tell you that we do not know what happened at the start of The Big Bang, we only have information back to a certain amount of time, before which any physicist will tell you we simply have no clue what happened, and that the laws of physics break down at a certain point by the current understanding of the theory.

Any perceived hypocrisy is a result of your lack of understanding. Scientists back everything they say up with data which is readily available to anyone who wants to try to disprove it or offer alternate theories.



The big bang is a testable, verifiable theory? The thing thing that we can test, is that the universe is constantly expanding, but we have absolutely no clue of it's origin that can be verified. None. Science attempts to explain the origins of the ever expanding universe with philosophical physics based on theories, which is exactly what religion is. The theory that the universe is the result of an epic explosion is very reasonable based on the amount of energy it takes to form certain elements, but to come to the conclusion about the cause of that explosion is wildly inappropriate in the realm of science, because we have no way of determining that, and probably never will, yet science does that all the time with great passion and faith. I am not discounting all the work that many a scientist has extrapolated on, I just think it's ridiculous that so many scientists discount one unprovable belief for another.



What part of the whole explanation of how any physicist on earth will tell you that WE DON'T KNOW what happened at the beginning of the universe did you not understand? Scientists don't do anything with "faith" they look at data and come up with interpretations based on that information. If there is insufficient data they say that they don't know. We can track the formation of the early universe back to a certain point in time, by examining the CMB, beyond which point we do not know what happened (which is why the real measurement of the age of the universe comes with a +/- probability of 130 million years), but have some possible theories.

What do you not understand about this? "The Big Bang Theory" is not some perfectly defined theory touted as 100% fact, there are a large number of different theories out there, including a large number of variations of the big bang theory, and none of them are claimed as proven fact.

You don't know what you're talking about, and like I already said, any perceived hypocrisy is a result of your failure to understand, probably because you've never actually read a single scientific paper in your entire life, know nothing about physics and are talking out of your ass.
mrsmiley
7/3/12 7:56:49AM
Just my two cents said by someone much better than I could. Hell most of it probably has nothing to do with the actual discussion.LOL.

On September 2nd, The Times printed excerpts from Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design. The English physicist argues that God is no longer needed, writing that “the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists…It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” The response from writers in the commercial media was fast and furious. Their harsh comments quickly appeared on Twitter, a platform that encourages short, sharp statements. Reuters religion editor Tom Heneghan dismissively wrote, “Stephen Hawking can’t use physics to answer why we’re here.” Mollie Hemingway of Christianity Today was judgmental; her tweet read, “If this is really what Hawking said, another indication of how unserious some atheists are @ big questions.” The nastiest tweet came from Chicago Tribune religion writer Manya Brachear. “Stephen Hawking’s answer to the God question,” she wrote, “stinks.” The blogosphere was equally uncollegial. In an essay titled “Theology: Stephen Hawking & More Tiresome Atheism,” Robert Barron of the Word on Fire Blog wrote, “something in me tightens whenever I hear a scientist pontificating on issues that belong to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics.” What made these writers so upset? Brachear describes herself as a “religion reporter on a quest for truth and Truth – yes, with a capital T.” Capitalization is central to the Hawking discussion, as well; the media response has focused exclusively on God – yes, with a capital G. While Barron calls Hawking a dogmatic New Atheist, I would argue that the physicist is actually an open-minded Old Mythologist. Switch the mystic power from capital-G “God” to little-g “god,” move the frame of reference from Christian mythology to Norse mythology, and Hawking appears downright spiritual. Modern physics may be incompatible with the Christian creation myth, but it works nicely with the Norse one. According to the Eddas, the 13th-century Icelandic manuscripts that are primary sources for Norse mythology, there was nothing at the dawn of time but Ginnungagap – the beguiling void of chaos. Then, out of nothing came something. Fire and ice appeared, and our reality emerged from their clash – their “Big Bang,” if you will. There was no conscious agent at work, no Prime Mover. This fits nicely with Hawking’s assertion that “the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Barron’s rebuttal is that “any teacher worth his salt would take a student to task if, in trying to explain why and how a given phenomenon occurred, the student were to say, ‘well, it just spontaneously happened.’” Of course, any four-year-old with basic human curiosity would ask, “who made God?” In contrast to Norse mythology’s complex family tales of gods, giants, elves, and dwarves, the Christian mythos is noticeably silent on the origin of its deity. In effect, he “just spontaneously happened.” Hawking’s justification for spontaneous creation is that “there is a law such as gravity.” This particularly irked Barron, who wrote, “which is it: nothing or the law of gravity? There’s quite a substantial difference between the two.” Norse mythology once again provides a metaphorical context. The gods, far from omnipotent, are themselves subject to laws, and there are grim consequences for breaking them. Richard Wagner wrote four “music dramas” exploring the struggles of the Norse god Wotan with laws that he must both enforce and obey. The gods are subject to immutable cosmic law just as planets are controlled by the law of gravity. Barron writes that “to claim that something as finite and variable as the force of gravity is the ultimate explaining value is simply ludicrous.” I’d bet that Hawking’s science is a bit more nuanced than “gravity did it” Is it really more philosophically sound to simply assert that “God did it”? In The Telegraph, physicist Graham Farmelo asserts that Hawking was “speaking metaphorically” when, in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, he wrote that the ultimate end of science was to “know the mind of God.” In June of this year, Hawking said that “you can call the laws of science ‘God,’ but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet and ask questions.” Suprisingly, Barron (a Catholic priest) seems to agree: “Catholic philosophy has identified this non-contigent ground of contingency, this ultimate explanation of the being of the universe, as ‘God.’” If the leaders of the Catholic Church have really moved from God-as-conscious-being to God-as-philosophical-construct, cheers to them. If we accept this idea of religion-as-metaphor – and many of us won’t – isn’t the Norse cosmogony a better fit for modern physics than the Christian one? I agree wholeheartedly with Farmelo that “no religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations.” Rationality seems to have had very little effect on the major religions; the weapon that has destroyed older faiths has been the overwhelming cultural, economic, and military force of the conversion-based religions. I do, however, disagree with his claim that “no religion has ever been set out in terms of scientific statements.” The Norse cosmology clearly sets out to explain the world around us: the phenomenon of lightning is caused by Thor throwing his mystic hammer, the aural experience of thunder is caused by Thor’s sky-chariot rolling through the clouds, etc. What is mythology but the earliest attempt of humanity to create a scientific understanding of the overwhelming world around it? To Hawking, the 1992 discovery of a distant star with its own orbiting planet made the Earth’s development “far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.” Again, this lines up better with Norse myth than with Christian myth. Of the Nine Worlds described in the Eddas, our human one is clearly not the most important. The idea that humanity is not necessarily the center of reality is also put forward by Hawking. Arguing that existence is comprehensible through physics alone, he writes that there is no need to imagine a “benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit.” Farmelo writes that Einstein and Spinoza both felt that “the concept of God is an expression of the underlying unity of the universe, something so wondrous that it can command a spiritual awe.” The scientist and the philosopher have more in common with the Old Norse than the Christian; for the societies in which Norse mythology developed as an expression of living faith, this sense of wonder at the glory of existence was expressed by tales of larger-than-life gods and goddesses who represent natural powers and phenomena. The gods did not create the natural world; they are the natural world. Mathematician Eric Priest wrote in The Guardian that “being able to explain the big bang in terms of physics is not inconsistent with there being a role for God.” If physics is even more consistent with Norse mythology, doesn’t that mean that this ancient worldview is more compatible with modern science than Christianity is? Indeed, Priest writes that “often philosophy or history or theology are better suited to help answer” many of life’s deepest questions. Yet he, like most of the writers mentioned above, focuses solely on a culturally-bound duality by insisting that “you can ask whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more consistent with your experience.” Are those the only real choices? If I don’t believe in the God of Abraham, am I ipso facto an atheist? In any time period, insisting on this false choice would feel culturally imperialist. In the 21st century, it feels dangerously out-of-date. The need to expand our theological concepts to include perspectives other than monotheistic, Creator-driven faiths is long overdue. This essay © 2010 by Dr. Karl E. H. Seigfried

Everything old is new again.
airkerma
7/3/12 10:02:14AM
Reason behind the naming...
"The particle has been so difficult to pin down that the physicist Leon Lederman reportedly wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle." But he truncated that epithet to "The God Particle," which may have helped elevate the particle's allure in popular culture."
warglory
7/3/12 6:51:58PM

Posted by Aether

What part of the whole explanation of how any physicist on earth will tell you that WE DON'T KNOW what happened at the beginning of the universe did you not understand? Scientists don't do anything with "faith" they look at data and come up with interpretations based on that information. If there is insufficient data they say that they don't know. We can track the formation of the early universe back to a certain point in time, by examining the CMB, beyond which point we do not know what happened (which is why the real measurement of the age of the universe comes with a +/- probability of 130 million years), but have some possible theories.

What do you not understand about this? "The Big Bang Theory" is not some perfectly defined theory touted as 100% fact, there are a large number of different theories out there, including a large number of variations of the big bang theory, and none of them are claimed as proven fact.

You don't know what you're talking about, and like I already said, any perceived hypocrisy is a result of your failure to understand, probably because you've never actually read a single scientific paper in your entire life, know nothing about physics and are talking out of your ass.



Except that scientists equate the big bang to a singular particle that released massive amounts of energy. Am I wrong about that point? If that's the case, they ARE saying they know exactly the origins of the big bang. They don't speculate on the nature of this particle, but the particle is there. Just by saying there was a singular particle that was the basis for this massive energy release is completely unprovable. Why even speculate about the nature of there being a single particle? This is purely philosophical, because this event could have just as easily been started by something metaphysical. That was my whole point of bringing up this topic to begin with. I don't know why you are getting so judgmental.

Here's a clip from a History channel special that openly postulates about the origin of the big bang, instead of posing it as a mystery or stating that it's pure speculation. This happens all.the.time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDQzKTedGNE
Cooler
7/3/12 8:15:01PM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether


Posted by warglory

I don't mean any disrespect to the OP, as the consequences of this potential discovery could very well have large ramifications, I don't know, but my opinion about the whole big bang theory is luke warm at best. Why?

Because science often shits on religion as being this untestable series of events that doesn't fit comfortably into the logic of science. I am not religious...at all, but I just find it completely hypocritical when science judges God as being imaginary, but then talks about a singular particle, floating...somewhere (because space isn't just space, it's made up of dark matter remember), and suddenly erupts, for some reason, causing rapid growth in the amount of matter, which somehow multiplied itself from a singular particle, which goes against the very essence of testable physics, into the universe we know today. All of this may be true, but the fact that scientists don't see the blatant hypocrisy in judging religion, while then openly supporting the big bang theory as if it were quantifiable fact is laughably insane.

/soapbox.



There's no hypocrisy because scientists don't talk about certainties, they talk about probabilities and they back those probabilities up with testable, verifiable data. The reason scientists believe that The Big Bang is likely is because that's exactly what all of the available data indicates happened.

The reason you think it's hypocrisy is because you have not examined the data. You can look at the research into the cosmic microwave background and its anisotropies, or the isotropic redshift of every galaxy we can see, which are both incredibly compelling pieces of evidence that our universe is and has been expanding from a very early time.

Also, if you ask any actual physicist, they will tell you that we do not know what happened at the start of The Big Bang, we only have information back to a certain amount of time, before which any physicist will tell you we simply have no clue what happened, and that the laws of physics break down at a certain point by the current understanding of the theory.

Any perceived hypocrisy is a result of your lack of understanding. Scientists back everything they say up with data which is readily available to anyone who wants to try to disprove it or offer alternate theories.



The big bang is a testable, verifiable theory? The thing thing that we can test, is that the universe is constantly expanding, but we have absolutely no clue of it's origin that can be verified. None. Science attempts to explain the origins of the ever expanding universe with philosophical physics based on theories, which is exactly what religion is. The theory that the universe is the result of an epic explosion is very reasonable based on the amount of energy it takes to form certain elements, but to come to the conclusion about the cause of that explosion is wildly inappropriate in the realm of science, because we have no way of determining that, and probably never will, yet science does that all the time with great passion and faith. I am not discounting all the work that many a scientist has extrapolated on, I just think it's ridiculous that so many scientists discount one unprovable belief for another.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Answers any questions you may have about the Big Bang.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is an example of some evidence.
Aether
7/3/12 11:18:07PM
Right, well this is sort of my point. A 30 minute television show on the history channel is entertainment, not science. There may be some educational value, but you can't possibly stuff concepts as complex as are dealt with in physics into a 30 - 60 minute program for people with no background in physics without making broad generalizations, assertions, and leaving out huge chunks of information.


If anyone wants to learn about ACTUAL physics, these are a few of the resources I use on a regular basis:

Walter Lewin's MIT Lectures

Leonard Susskind's Stanford Lectures

Khan Academy

Calculus Primer

You can't watch some shows on the discovery channel and say that you know what scientists are claiming about different theories. The Big Bang Theory is not accepted as 100% fact. There are elements of the theory that we know perfectly well do not work, and any physicist will tell you as much, as I've said numerous times. It is one possible model for the beginning of the universe, and it happens to be the most popular one, because it explains the largest amount of data out of the theories available to us.
ChrisSabal
7/3/12 11:37:18PM

Posted by ghandikush

God in this sense would be entirely philosophical and not at all necessarily conscious creator. Worship the sun the earth and the elements in that case because its as close as youre gonna get



Charles Manson does you should too
Bubbles
7/4/12 12:23:37AM

Posted by kopower

I never would have guessed this thread would reach over 60 replies. Very interesting points brought up.


this banter is hurting my brain
MALICE
7/4/12 8:36:56AM
There is a simple truth that is constantly denied by many. That truth is...

There are some things we as humans may never comprehend. For instance, Time. We live in a world where there are limits. There is a starting and finishing point for everything. We are born and then we die. The earth was created and someday it will cease to exist. Saturday at 9 PM CST, UFC 148 will begin, and it will end with Sonnen on the mat, I mean Silva, I mean....I Still don't know who to pick. Anyways, not having the answers scares people. Not having the answers upsets people. How can there not be a beginning? How can there not be an end? There may be a time when humans have the truth of it all, but it is not soon. Some answers need to be accepted for what they are, our best guess, until sufficient evidence comes along to prove or disprove them.
airkerma
7/4/12 9:09:10AM
They found it
State_Champ
7/4/12 10:24:02AM

Posted by airkerma

They found it




link
warglory
7/4/12 10:24:55AM

Posted by Aether

Right, well this is sort of my point. A 30 minute television show on the history channel is entertainment, not science. There may be some educational value, but you can't possibly stuff concepts as complex as are dealt with in physics into a 30 - 60 minute program for people with no background in physics without making broad generalizations, assertions, and leaving out huge chunks of information.


If anyone wants to learn about ACTUAL physics, these are a few of the resources I use on a regular basis:

Walter Lewin's MIT Lectures

Leonard Susskind's Stanford Lectures

Khan Academy

Calculus Primer

You can't watch some shows on the discovery channel and say that you know what scientists are claiming about different theories. The Big Bang Theory is not accepted as 100% fact. There are elements of the theory that we know perfectly well do not work, and any physicist will tell you as much, as I've said numerous times. It is one possible model for the beginning of the universe, and it happens to be the most popular one, because it explains the largest amount of data out of the theories available to us.



Way to gloss over my entire point by focusing on my one example, which I 100% knew you would do.

Did you really give me links to generalized physical knowledge databases? Are you trying to show me up by dropping a giant red herring in front of me by ignoring the basic philosophical concept that I have highlighted, which you refuse to address as a COMMON problem in science ? This isn't just about big bang, it's about science in general. I know rudimentary physics, but I know quite a bit about critical thinking. You know what one of the biggest enemies of critical thinking is? "Assumptions" Which is what scientists do all the time after coming to certain conclusions. We assume that there was a singular particle at the beginning, and thus we tend to include that in lectures in school, or in television specials, which is basically indoctrinating people on a theory with no basis.

Here are a link to better educate you on the philosophy of critical thinking:


http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

If you're going to dismiss my point with a wave of elitist rhetoric, than there's little point in continuing.
Aether
7/4/12 10:36:34AM
OK, I've said this at least 5 times now. Ask any physicist in the world and they will tell you we don't know what happened at the start of the universe. It's pretty simple: you're talking bullshit and you have never read a scientific paper in your life, you watch shit on the discovery channel and the history channel and you think you have a clue what scientists actually do; you don't.

Scientists perform experiments and analyze data, they include margins of errors in their calculations and publish them so that the greater scientific community can pick them apart and try to find any errors they possibly can. Everyone wants to disprove everyone else's theories so that they can advance their own, and it makes for an incredibly rigorous system that does not allow assumptions to be put forth as fact.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong. It's not subjective, you're wrong and uneducated on the issue you're trying to debate. Give it up.
Poor_Franklin
7/4/12 12:49:16PM

Posted by airkerma

They found it




warglory
7/4/12 9:59:32PM

Posted by Aether

OK, I've said this at least 5 times now. Ask any physicist in the world and they will tell you we don't know what happened at the start of the universe. It's pretty simple: you're talking bullshit and you have never read a scientific paper in your life, you watch shit on the discovery channel and the history channel and you think you have a clue what scientists actually do; you don't.

Scientists perform experiments and analyze data, they include margins of errors in their calculations and publish them so that the greater scientific community can pick them apart and try to find any errors they possibly can. Everyone wants to disprove everyone else's theories so that they can advance their own, and it makes for an incredibly rigorous system that does not allow assumptions to be put forth as fact.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're wrong. It's not subjective, you're wrong and uneducated on the issue you're trying to debate. Give it up.



Pages: 1 2 [3]