The Higgs Boson aka "The God Particle", and the problem of unnatural fine tuning.

This topic/discussion is based on the following article, and presentation by one of the discoverers of the Higgs Boson particle itself.

The Higgs Boson: A Natural Disaster!

Link: www.quantumdiaries.org...

So, in a nutshell, the standard model of physics was rendered complete with the detection of the Higgs Boson particle.

However, problem. It's mass was not what the standard model predicted, but was "fine-tuned" by trillions (quadrillions) of degrees or what I've seen other physicists refer to as "reductions", the result for which appears to be entirely unnatural.

Solutions:

1) Supersymmetry - or anti-particles or sparticles for every particle. Problem. Not detected. Also, such supersymmetry could also mean that the universe should not be but would have self-annihilated the moment it was "born" with particle and sypersymmetrical anti-particle annhiliating each other. The LHC will be continuing to look for this, and an even larger collider may be built to test for it, but this solution isn't looking promising.

2) Compositeness - the Higgs isn't a fundamental particle, but a composite of still more fundamental particles that somehow self-adjust in their relationship to one another resulting in the appearance of unnatural fine tuning. Problem, nothing else and no other particles are coming out of the LHC and a larger collider might not produce them either.

3) Multi-Worlds, Multi-Verse Theory, with Strong Anthropic Principal. Problem - end of science, whereby all subjectivity and analysis is rendered moot as an unfathomable "coincidence" whereby we just so happen to be measuring in the one universe of an infinite possible array wherein the Higgs Boson only appears to have been unnaturally fine-tuned by quadrillions of reductions. In other words, it just is what it is mon (ire), and well, if it were any other way, then we would not be here to ask the question. Wut?! Huh?! Yea, the end of science, with no more particles forthcoming because there aren't any more.

4) String Theory. Problem - same as multi-worlds/multiverse. String theory seems to describe every other universe but our own and does not appear to be subject to testing and verification by any empirical means so it will forever remain a theory. It also involves a direct appeal to the multiverse hypothesis with strong anthropic principal to try to explain the fine-tuning problem.

5) God did it, by super-intelligent design and with intent (by anticipation).

One way of looking at number five, if you're uncomfortable with the idea of a creator God, would be to take on the idea of a field of infinite knowledge via accumulated information arising in eternity, like a Godhead of absolute formless potential (uncreated), whereby, beginning with the end in mind, having considered every possible outcome, and taking on the role of creator "you" measure twice and cut once since you could end up probing the impossible forever without arriving at what is now actualized. In other words you can't get from there to here, except by anticipation. This mind-of-God explanation is in alignment with the work of physicists such as Bernard Haisch and Erwin Laszlo whereby Haisch employes the idea of the Godhead using the allegory of a filtered white light that, in order to differentiate itself and to make this life possible, including our own place in it, it must intelligently limit or reduce itself many many times, not unlike the fine-tuning of the Higgs, and limit or filter it's infinite, absolute, formless potential. He then suggests that there's no need to draw the distinction between God and Godhead of which we ourselves are not unlike a chip off the OLD block, by anticipation and with intent, presumably in order so that a shared and varied experience would be possible.

Problem. This would have to include not only the quantum realm, but also the precise organization of the material universe to bring about our present circumstance and thus the entire cosmic framework all the way to our own earth-moon-sun configuration (not as a mere chance or random occurrence).

The implications of unnatural fine-tuning, if Supersymmetry and Compositeness and the Multiverse (with Strong Anthropic Principal) must be discarded in favor of a new paradigm of some sort of intelligent creative X factor, cannot be underestimated, since they point to a whole new basis of our understanding of our place in the grand scheme of things, even as children of a loving and very generous God who it pleased to share his eternal kingdom of light, life and love.. "therefore fear not little ones nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased the father to share his kingdom".

Can these ancient understandings and basis of reason and logic move from the realm of "religion" into the logical assertions of the empirical evidence of modern science at the very cutting edge, even to the very point of almost cutting off it's own nose to spite it's face amid the end of any reasonable inquiry into who and why the universe is the way it is?

Is this (Higg's Boson unnatural fine-tuning) the end of scientific inquiry into the underlying nature of the material world, or will the new paradigm of an infinitely intelligent cosmological unity or self-aware universe that has included us on purpose, prevail, no matter what are it's implications?

By avoiding the implication of a type of God Theory, would science be willing to shoot itself in the foot? I don't think so. I have more faith in human curiosity and imagination than that. We go where the evidence leads us, no matter what are the implications..

Many of you will differ here of course, also to avoid the implication of the unnatural fine tuning of the Higgs Boson aka (ironically) "the God particle", but it (a God Theory) is the most reasonable position to take in the face of the alternative multiverse, strong anthropic principal "hypothesis" which goes nowhere fast and leaves us in a state of perpetual uncertainty about the nature of reality.

"To be is to be perceived"
~ an adage of modern Quantum physics. (I just hope we get some privacy when we're in the shower!).

2 Pg Article
Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field, by Physicist Bernard Haisch

Bernard Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

The God Theory

Quoting Bernard Haisch from "The God Theory"

If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Ervin Laszlo

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutitnary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In Laszlo's view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Maybe at the end of science there's a joke at the expense of both science and religion that just keeps on getting better the more we come to grips with it and to better understand it's implications.

Wouldn't that be funny.. and interesting..?!

I think that everything is proof of God. Because God is Almighty.

Everything is perfect--too perfect for random chance.

Have you ever read Darwin's Black Box?

I don't know deeply enough about quantum physics to really respond to you. I do, however, understand radiant aether. At least a little bit. You see, I see energy. I have been able to ever since I can remember. I thought it was normal.

--Although it's not like I'm anything special, though, either. I'm no Tesla (math without a purpose doesn't interest me because numbers are arbitrary constructs for things one can't even really assign numbers to...but I digress lol) I only understand understand it to the extent of a mere observer. Probably because I lack the knowledge to do anything more about it. But whatever

The Hall of Inspiration, as I like to think of it, is real. I only ever saw it while on some very potent mushrooms. I do believe that ancient divination techniques do have cultural merit--and who knows what doors ancient things might unlock? It's all based on your mindset, as Terence McKenna said. You don't even have to be on anything--I guess if you get into the right frame of mind, you could technically access the Akashic Records. Perhaps it's a form of collective subconscious that we as humans have. Like how history always repeats itself. I saw myself painting these Renaissance-style masterpieces that I've never seen before. I can't do that, now, of course. But my drawing style changed as a result--so did my writing. Or maybe I've just matured, naturally. Who can say?

Anyway, I don't really have a point, but interesting thread. As you can see, I don't really have the experience to say one way or the other how I feel about all of this. But...I've told you all I can think of about it off of the top of my head.

*ALSO it's totally 4am and I'm exhausted. And now even more-so after reading your OP lol

cheers, mviii

a reply to: rukia

All our filters and even our foibles and poisons and even our religious notions are probably a defense against it (think tiny box in an ocean of possible knowledge), but that is interesting to think that it might have it's own outer hallways and inner sanctums, but I think that radiant ocean best describes it, and if you can see it, well that's pretty darn interesting and in the realm of plausible since our brain and nervous system also has a quantum realm in the microtubules of the brain. For all we know our mind could be not unlike a node in a larger mind, framed in a both local and a non-local, holographic "image" ie: made in God's image?

That's a big mind filled with a lot of experience, including our own.

But to think that it might have been anticipated from a first/last cause...

Scientifically, I think we're on a freight train now with inertia hurtling headlong into a great predicament, the resolution of which is going to leave everyone utterly astonished, as if making statements like "you loved me before the very foundation of the world" entirely logical and valid sentiments of one who fully understands their true place in the grand scheme of things both as a human being, and, as a son of God.

Trippy stuff!

Thanks for stopping by and contributing.

If you can see it - have you ever noticed that it, the radiant light, was intelligent?

As the lowest energy level, I don't think it's physically visible, so maybe you're seeing it with your third eye or seeing it at a deeper level I don't know. Have you seen an eye doctor about it? lol

Ankh

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Great thread.

I agree with you. The future existence(realized divinity) is so close if we can collectively see beyond ourselves.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Actually it's not so fine tubed at all. In fact it's mass is to low.The Higgs boson is about 126 billion electron volts, or about the 126 times the mass of a proton. Thus is right on the edge of instability meaning many believe that the Higgs boson will eventually lead to the destruction of our universe through quantum fluctuations. If it was so fine tuned as your speaker claims why doesn't it have more mass making the universe stable.

In the multiverse theory this can be explained by the higgs having many diffrent masses and our universe just happened to be the lowest mass the particle can have. By the way at least when thr universe does have this quantum fluctuation it will move at the speed of light and give you a warning as stars just start disapearing imagine what the night sky would look like. But back to your op if it was fine tuned then this positivity couldn't occur meaning much more likely it's random.

Ps mini blackholes are interesting as an expliantion as well you left that out.🤔

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Cool thread It just occurred to me that Science seems to have many options as to what the truth is just like Religion does . You would think that because of facts and the whole empirical nature they would have nailed it down by now . Instead what this thread is suggesting is that there are different camps and sects with their own dogmas with high priests the flock look to for the answers . interesting .

Quantum physics is not religion.
It's math
If an equation doesn't work out It's because someone forgot to carry a one.

a reply to: dragonridr

He's just one of the people who discovered it.

Look, if you Google Higgs Boson, unnaturalness and fine tuning, the relevant articles show up, like this one

www.quantamagazine.org...

which is advocating for the multiverse theory to try to explain it, along with the unnatural fine tuning of the Cosmological Constant.

The only problem with it as far as I can tell, is that every other universe that did not produce this one, must somehow also form a type of arrow that produced this one, or the sum total of what couldn't produce this universe, made this one possible. I think it's an absurd hypothesis to avoid the other possibility which is the more obvious one, that the fine tuning represents an intelligent subtraction or correction (fine tuning) in order so that this life would be possible.

If it wasn't stable, then we wouldn't be here.

The error in the analysis showing the problems set by the "unnaturally" small mass of the Higgs particle is this: the implication that supersymmetry does not exist and so cannot cancel the huge contributions to its mass caused by particles and sparticles rests on the assumption made in the Standard Model that quarks are fundamental. If they are not (and I have mathematical proof that they are not), then supersymmetry applies to their hypothetical constituents. That means that squarks could only exist if all three spin-1/2 constituents of quarks turned into their supersymmetric counterparts and remained bound. Bose-Einstein statistics requires for the spin-0 squark that the bound state wave function of three spin-0 particles should be symmetric under interchange of any two particles. As their spin wave function is symmetric, the remainder of the wave function must be symmetric. Either:
case A
both the "hypercolour" wave function and the "unitary spin" part of the wave function are symmetric or
case B
both these wave functions are antisymmetric.
(the reasonable assumption has been made that the three subquarks remain in a bound state with a symmetric space wave function when they turn into their supersymmetric versions bound by some as yet undiscovered hypercolour force). As quarks, by definition, would be hypercolour singlet states, the hypercolour wave function of squarks must, too, be antisymmetric (just as in the case of colour-singlet baryons) and so only case B applies. But this means that the unitary spin wave function of the three bound spin-0 particles in a squark must be antisymmetric in order to obey the Bose-Einstein statistics required for spin-0 squarks.But before the transformation,the spin-unitary spin part of the wavefunction was symmetric (each component had mixed symmetry). As supersymmetry cannot alter the unitary spin state of a particle, only its spin part, it means that case B is invalid as well and Bose-Einstein statistics do not allow composite squarks to exist. The reason why CERN's LHC has not detected them is NOT that supersymmetry does not exist but that quarks are composite!
Supersymmetry remains a sound mechanism for fine-tuning the Higgs mass. All physicists have to do is to start looking for evidence of composite quarks as one of the ways for moving beyond the Standrad Model. Actually, some experimental evidence from high-energy p-p elastic scattering has been around for years (I did my M.Sc on this topic). It's just that there were alternative explanations of the variation of deduced proton electromagnetic form factors with momentum transfer. Haisch's analysis is therefore flawed because he makes the assumption physicists are right in believing that quarks are fundamental, whereas this will turn out to be a huge mistake.

If you want to see the real God particle, then study this. If you also want to examine compelling evidence for quarks being composed of as yet undiscovered particles, study this.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Ah, the classic answer of a beliver to any question which exceeds his knowledge:

God did it!



What is wrong with simply saying that you/we don't know (yet)?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Quantum physics is not religion.
It's math
If an equation doesn't work out It's because someone forgot to carry a one.

Or if a equation doesn't work it could mean we exist in a vast multiverse with different fundamental constants.

That is where religious interpretation fit's in.

a reply to: imitator

If an equation doesn't work, it means our model is wrong. Nothing more to it than that. No need to resort to magic and untestable beliefs that offer no explanatory power beyond emotional comfort.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Can I ask why you glossed over the other four hypotheses and jump straight to the supernatural conjecture?

Fun fact, the God particle was originally called the god-damned particle because it was so God damned hard to find. Obviously they shortened it to a more publicly acceptable version. Just some FYI incase you were getting any misleading ideas about the name.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Ah, the classic answer of a beliver to any question which exceeds his knowledge:

God did it!



What is wrong with simply saying that you/we don't know (yet)?

What's wrong with simply saying that God is a possibility as much as the multiverse or string theory's are?

Dogma is a bitch, isn't it?

a reply to: jaws1975

Multiverse hypothesis is potentially testable and has explanatory power. "God did it!" is not.

a reply to: GetHyped

No, science just gives God different names like nature and placebo effect.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: imitator

If an equation doesn't work, it means our model is wrong. Nothing more to it than that. No need to resort to magic and untestable beliefs that offer no explanatory power beyond emotional comfort.

And if the equation doesn't agree with experiment, it is wrong

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: GetHyped

No, science just gives God different names like nature and placebo effect.

No, that's just your philosophically comforting projection.

a reply to: jaws1975

That's more a problem with the vagueness that comes with the concept of god than with science.