Today excitement broke out at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research)
and the LHC (Large Hadron Collider)
I'm excited myself.


http://public.web.cern.ch/public/


Higgs may have finally been spotted (at 2.00272058 × 10-8 joules, that is).
This is tremendous news for the particle physics community.
But...not so fast, as we stand next to the accelerator.

News
Latest on CERN: twitter.com/cern Rolf Heuer's final remark: "these are preliminary results. More data will come in 2012. We have not yet found or disproved the #Higgs." Tue 13 Dec

http://user.web.cern.ch/user/Welcome.asp

We have waited this long...

---

Off to Singapore for a spell!

Good this. I was putting off reading The Quantum Universe just in case the whole standard model would be obsolete today :]

---

The opposite of hatred is love; the opposite of tyranny is love; the opposite of censorship is love; the opposite of evil is love; the opposite of politics is love; the opposite of war is love; the opposite of god is love.–– Salman Rushdie
Broadly speaking, it is held that getting money is good and spending money is bad. Seeing that they are two sides of one transaction, this is absurd; one might as well maintain that keys are good, but keyholes are bad. Whatever merit there may be in the production of goods must be entirely derivative from the advantage to be obtained by consuming them. –Bertrand Russell
Never believe a liar. Papa, angry people burn our home.

To quote will:
"I wish the media wouldn't use the term 'God Particle'; they know that it's not a term physicists use,
and they know the effect it has on the collective conscience. "
-
I whole-heartedly agree. Higgs boson (Higgs particle) is called the "God particle" because the media
simplistically perceives it as 'existing everywhere yet very elusive'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elusive
-
Confusing and at times purposefully misleading or agenda driven,
the media likes to live in what my grandson kindly calls "a bumper-sticker world".

---

Off to Singapore for a spell!

As I understand it, and not wishing anyone offence, the so called god particle, if it exists,

will never be seen. It will always remain a blip on a screen. The notion that tiny particles found in atoms somehow

acted as a catalyst to construct matter does not explain their arrival. It will be back to the chicken and the egg

scenario, even if true. It explains nothing at all in my humble view and I cannot get excited about it. It does not

go any way to explain the evolutionary theory of how life came from non-life. We live in a world of great need and

full of problems and I cannot help but feel it is a waste of money seeking an answer that can never be found.


The planet is covered in grasses. We feel, touch, observe, eat and wonder at them, but yet we do not understand

that we see and touch, since there are yet laboratory’s devoted to the study of such vegetation. To me it seems

extraordinarily ambitious and misguided to think we can solve the mystery of the universe when we have so many

things on earth that confuse us and need our attention.

I repeat this is just my view, and many of you will think otherwise.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Whoopee! Then God loves all of us - whom He has not destroyed by natural disasters, the famous "Acts of God"! (But I fail to see why He created the cobra alongside the pigeon.)

---

Brain-washing starts in the cradle. - Arthur Koestler

I know thar. That's what makes this all so cool!

---

Off to Singapore for a spell!

You understand correctly, subatomic particles are many times too small to be observed with the naked eye. There are a number of detections methods at this level, the Higgs boson has eluded all thus far. Of course many things we can't 'see' can be observed and most of our technological advances and conveniences are based on those observations.


It's not proposed that the Higgs bosun 'constructs' matter.


Bah humbug!.. The importance of these experiments is inescapable. Either way, it will either be a huge advance for the Standard Model (not to mention the implications for the Unified Theory) or it will be one of the most significant turning point in physics for a generation.


Err... if you meant to demonstrate how little you know about the subject, you couldn't have picked a more irrelevant point (or a more inaccurate; you've mangled several different fields into one).


I blame the mechanised loom... thin end of the wedge. Internet's fab though, huh?

What 'answer' is it that you imagine is being sought?


Again you couldn't have picked a worse example to make a more irrelevant point. How do you think global agribusinesses operate? How do you think patchy Savannah grasses became high yield fields of wheat?


It's by tackling the extraordinarily ambitious that we dispel 'confusion' in general; always has been. Science is rarely compartmentalised into this or that goal. For example, development of the LHC has led to advances in MRI scanners.


Please don't take this personally, but I've only replied to two (I think) of your posts, and I must say your style reminds me of a peculiar chap that used to frequent these boards (before you arrived I think). He had a habit of digging himself into holes with lofty dismissals of subjects he clearly knew nothing about. He also seemed to think 'I'm entitled to my opinion' negated the empirical.

You seem, at first glance, to have better control... but then I did experience the poor man at the height of his meltdown.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

Will, would you mind if I gave you a piece of advice?

You obviously take great interest in what I write and read me assiduously.

I on the other hand can say, with my hand on my heart, that I do not read

your comments since I know you well of old and your odd, if I may say, way of

reasoning as well as your all too often inaccurate statements. I well remember

your comment that all babies are born atheists and how you could not bring yourself to climb down.

You take apart my words... misapply them... reach wrong conclusions and write reams.

I remember you from the past and gave up on you then.

Can we not agree, please, to leave each other's comments alone?

I would find it tiresome to contradict your every line of reasoning and do not desire to do so.

Be happy, but please, with respect, leave me alone and stop following me. Thank you in advance for your hoped for

consideration in this regard.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Well, let's not overstate your allure. I stopped by on a whim and read some threads in areas of personal interest... and two of your posts. Both of which were so over-bloated with your style of ignorant pride that I couldn't resist a little poke.


That should work well then; I'll respond as I see fit and if my reasoning or facts are found wanting then others are free to comment as they see fit in the spirit of understanding. You can continue to try to ignore anything that grates against your narrow immutable world view.


Peter, my cards are always on the table and open to scrutiny. Excuse me if I don't take seriously advice from a person who deletes his past and uses multiple personalities in an attempt to scramble from the holes they dug for themselves.


If you want your opinions ignored, then why voice them in public? To expect only agreement or silence is bordering on megalomania -- and frankly, with your range of beliefs, agreement from any quarter may be hard to find.


I'll follow any discussion as I see fit. It's early days at Cern, but I'm fairly certain they have ruled out the theory that the universe revolves around you.




There is a common misconception (particularly among many theists) that a lack of credible explanations for certain (personal, dogmatic) beliefs must posit the existence of 'mysteries' that are unknowable. Apart from putting the cart before the horse, there's a paradox in this logic; if mankind did not utilise the (god given) will and means for discovery, then there would be little to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom and thus no grounds to believe man exists in gods image (or god in man's image).

Religion and science both start from the desire to explain the 'unknown' and to find reason in the 'mysterious' beauty of reality. I suggest the divide comes from how each deals with knowledge once it's acquired. Shooting the messenger or denying what is there to be discovered seems, to me, to serve no good purpose.

This is the worse symptom of this silly 'god particle' title; it misleads. The search for the Higgs boson is not an attempt to prove or disprove gods, the term actually originates from the similarities in the the elusiveness of each.


The Higgs boson is a (as yet theoretical) particle that is vital to the (proposed) Higgs field. Both are proposed by the Standard Model. It's the Higgs field that gives mass to the fundamental particles that make up atoms, and in turn which gives atoms 'stability'.

Atoms demonstrably have 'stability' regardless of whether we 'observe' Higgs or not. If Higgs is ruled out, then the 'failure' is a 'success' for any one of the Higgsless models; it's all good.

The models work anyway, but it's always worth knowing why things work. A parallel might be that gravity has always / will always act the way it does regardless of our understanding, but from pushing the bounds of our understanding mankind has advanced a great deal. Science is a tool to best explain reality, not 'win' an argument.


Abiogenesis is not an issue for these experiments, though it may indirectly be of interest in that field, insofar as it adds to the total stock of knowledge. I don't understand what you mean by chicken and egg syndrome.


You make it sound like science operates under a system of premium rate phone lines and a panel of judges headed by Simon Cowell.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

Is it arrogant of humans to try to find out everything inside ourselves and all the things out there?
Nature has evolved us to be explorers. Wake up to modern times, man! We are no longer living the Dark Ages.

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

Percy,
don't be so busy to denounce all the opinions disagreeing with yours.
Respect and politeness?
Think again.

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

In response to Percy's remarks, I'd say you are setting up a false dichotomy when you force a choice between basic scientific research and humanitarian causes. It's not one or the other; it's both. In fact, without research into things once thought quite impractical we would not have radiation therapy today. Tens of thousands, make it millions of cancer patients would have died, or at least would not enjoyed the longevity they have.


Please reconsider your position.

Excaelis you said: @Perc: Curiosity is one of the attributes that separates us from slugs, and I believe that we are designed to try to explain the world in which we find ourselves. But the starving children argument is one that would of necessity exclude all activities not directly related to global altruism. To disparage scientific inquiry on the grounds that it diverts funds from aid programs is not, I feel, a tenable position. One could have made the same argument against any of the state funded scientific advances that have produced so much and which we now regard as essential. The very medium upon which we are now able to communicate is one such.


I agree with almost all you say, except that I question whether this pursuit of a theory that will prove nothing is really science or good science. There are so many needs on the scientific front that would benefit man in real terms and that constitute worthy causes.

I am all for worthy science and recognise mans desire, and in many cases need, to know... but their

is science and that which is called science. In my view the Higgs/Boson experiment is playing games.

To me, it equates with a government setting aside billions to explore time travel into the future and

the past. Would that be worthy?

I do not think that in this finite environment of ours, and in our troubled times, we can escape the

need to prioritise to some extent.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

We all appreciate pleasant dispositions here on the forum.

---

Off to Singapore for a spell!

Dare I say it is a little unjust to conflate faith in general with the kind of wilful ignorance that the likes of Peter are so keen to display. Faith may be an utterly flawed methodology, and I eschew it to the strongest possible degree, but rejection of accumulated knowledge and collective human endeavour, for some narrow personal comfort, is something altogether different and not necessarily the end product of faith.

Let's not pretend Peter is making an informed argument here, nothing he has said gives any indication that he understands (or cares to try and understand) the basics of the issue – why do you think he capitalises the word 'boson' and conjoins it with Higgs?

His position, as always, begins and ends with the Genesis creation myth. Sadly, particularly in the US, this religious anti science agenda is widespread and carries disproportionate politically influence. It rarely (if ever) stems from humanitarian concerns; stem cell research would be a good case in point.

Why engage? Mostly I don't, but sometimes I find it good 'practice'.


It is not 'so called' the 'Higgs/Boson field', this is a term you've made up in an attempt to cover all the bases and your ignorance.


Either way these experiments will solve a number of unknowns, regardless of whether you understand or not. Indeed a great deal of useful data has already been collected and development of the LHC has already begun to pay dividends in terms of practical applications.


The first cause argument is not relevant here (if anywhere), but would you also say experiments to better understand the nature of genes is pointless because it doesn't tell us where molecules come from?


Space exploration arguably began with that renowned heretic Galileo. So where and by whom do you suggest the line is drawn?


The fact the you use the World Wide Web, to claim that this elite 'rich man club' has given produced nothing of value to humanity, is an irony probably lost on you.


Opinion is not debate. Debate requires at least a framework of basic rules.

---

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.

I suppose that if you don't believe in either God or particles the whole thing is a bit of a no-no.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

God only knows, or possibly not.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz