Scientists Abuzz Over Controversial Rumor that God Particle Has Been Detected

reply to post by Protector


Thanks for the article!

I guess the true implications will reveal themselves once they can see in full spectrum how this thing works. It's definitely leaving the imagination busy.

I know the opening post is a couple of days old. I have spent some time reading into this before writting a reply.

The following commentary is only for those who wish to criticize such findings and the lofty names that are attached to them. If someone is interested in these particles and how to work with them I suggest they give a lot of money to a university and be prepared to wait a very long time. This post is written not because I am against science, I am very much for science. This is written because I am against the simplistic mindset that thinks colorful naming is a substitute for actually teaching people how this stuff works.

www.phy.uct.ac.za...

The postulated Higgs field in the vacuum is a sort of hypothetical lattice which fills our Universe.

All those poor scientists who had their careers ruined for trying to research the Aether. Now it's coming back into vogue.

en.wikipedia.org...

it is of a class of particles known as scalar bosons. Bosons have [color=gold]integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin 0.

Ever since Lavoisier fathered modern Chemistry by naming oxygen (1778) and hydrogen (1783) particles of the element scale and below have been plagued by Dalton's Atomic theory.

Dalton's Atomic Theory

1. All matter is made of atoms.
2. All atoms of a given element are identical in mass and properties.
3. Compounds are formed by a combination of two or more different kinds of atoms.
4. A chemical reaction reacts in defined, [color=gold]whole-number ratios.

That's right folks. Subatomic particles have to be whole number integers because some old white guys said so. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of a fractal reality, money can only be spent looking for "the one particle."

www.jupiterscientific.org...

There are three fundamental forces.

The most familiar is gravity

The second fundamental force is ... magnetism

The third fundamental force is called the strong nuclear force.

So what happens to subatomic particles that pass through a black hole?

Through electromagnetism Hawking showed that some particles escape from the edges of a black hole. But no one has explained how matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to energy, yet a super massive black hole can exist which absorbs all light.

Is it possible that every single particle of matter here on earth is actually a tiny black hole, and that THAT is the reason mass has gravity. I know, I know, crazy right. I mean if that were true gravity would have to have like an infinite range wouldn't it. ...oh, wait.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson. If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1016 TeV). [color=gold]Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale

I bet they do.
It's the race of the millennia.
Who ever makes the break through gets to define the new chemistry, the new physics, the new sub-atomics.

Is it any wonder they call it the "god particle?"






Here is a more practical question.

Why is it that when public schools stopped teaching long division and started teaching [color=gold]"clustering" instead, and then raised up an entire generation of people who don't know how to carry the remainder, are we suddenly hearing about a new particle that uses [color=gold]"clustering" to give itself more mass.

Poor poor common people. They'll never believe they can be just as smart as physicists now.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy







Here is a more practical question.

Why is it that when public schools stopped teaching long division and started teaching [color=gold]"clustering" instead, and then raised up an entire generation of people who don't know how to carry the remainder, are we suddenly hearing about a new particle that uses [color=gold]"clustering" to give itself more mass.

Poor poor common people. They'll never believe they can be just as smart as physicists now.

David Grouchy

edit on 23-4-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)

That is truly funny.... I was wondering why my son always had problems understanding remainders when I help him through his math homework

Not really though... seems more like people are being dumbed down to me...

Thanks for the reads! I'm in and out during the day so i'll be doing research at intervals.

I recently read an excellent book on this issue: Massive: The Hunt for the God Particle by Ian Sample.
www.guardian.co.uk...
It relates the history of the search for this elusive particle and the many people that formulated the theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

“The Higgs mechanism (or "Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble" [5]) is a mechanism by which vector bosons can get a mass. It was proposed in 1964 independently and almost simultaneously by three groups of physicists: François Englert and Robert Brout;[6] by Peter Higgs,[7] (who was inspired by the ideas of Philip Anderson); and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.”[8]

Also, according to the book physicist hate the term “God particle” because the discovery of this particle and or field is not a discovery about matter, the fundamental reality of life, but mass, two different things:

en.wikipedia.org...

“Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter—such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)—also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.”

reply to post by forall2see


THis might be silly of me....but we live in a fractal universe...they aren't getting the picture...its infinite...as soon as they find a new particle they will say the same thing as when they found the atom...its the smallest part blah blah blah...then chances are they will think of another new particle and in essnce if we concieve of it, it is possible...ever zoom into a fractal....see how it can be redundant...

I hate to ruin the surprise...i recently posted my idea that they will eventually relize the thought of something smaller is the smallest...as it brings the concieved particle into existence in our group consciousness...

THE GOD PARTICLE IS THOUGHT...hence the spiritual garble about right and wrong...thoughts that are infinite in application are godly...anything unsustainable is blasphemous....i hope they do not already know this and aren't wasting the billions it took to build it....

Oh and thats the other part...see how big that thing is...imagine the cost of the new 1 they will say we need to build....lmao itll be like around our equator or something stupid before they give up...its like pie...3.14 is good enough mostly...3.141592654 fit on most calculators...it still cannot define the area of a circle...or the volume...its getting kinda silly i think....LMAO

PS Nassim Haramein unified field theory...swiss born, Canadian grown....now in Hawaii...and his work is under review...once they get thier head around it...we are off into infinity...you know that spiral they portray in the Mayan Calaendar....well get ready the rabbit whole is infinite....but the journey will be within us...not outside banging tiny tiny lil fugurative rocks together....LMAO

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Ah somebody on the same page good man!! Edit to add....Nassim Haramein...warning minimum 4 hour lecture on google. his main collection is around 8 hours....so only half a day of watching...admittedly integration may take more than 12 hrs lol

reply to post by davidgrouchy

The following commentary is only for those who wish to criticize such findings and the lofty names that are attached to them.

Does this mean, ‘if you disagree with me, keep quiet about it?’ Sorry, that castle won’t fly.

I am very much for science. This is written because I am against the simplistic mindset that thinks colorful naming is a substitute for actually teaching people how this stuff works.

Could you explain the difference between naming and explaining, please? Thank you in advance.

All those poor scientists who had their careers ruined for trying to research the Aether. Now it's coming back into vogue.

1. The postulated Higgs field cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with the so-called luminiferous ether. It is not a medium in which electromagnetic waves are propagated.
   
   
2. Could you name some scientists who had their careers ruined by researching the ether? Thanks.

That's right folks. Subatomic particles have to be whole number integers because some old white guys said so.

Fiddlesticks.

Particles having spin ½ include the proton, neutron, electron, and quarks. Source

Through electromagnetism Hawking showed that some particles escape from the edges of a black hole. But no one has explained how matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to energy, yet a super massive black hole can exist which absorbs all light.

Mass is energy. Energy that falls into a black hole adds to the black hole mass. How hard is that to understand?

Is it possible that every single particle of matter here on earth is actually a tiny black hole, and that THAT is the reason mass has gravity.

What are the properties of ‘every single particle of matter’ that would make them black holes? Would you care to list them? Thank you again.

Why is it that when public schools stopped teaching long division and started teaching clustering instead, and then raised up an entire generation of people who don't know how to carry the remainder, are we suddenly hearing about a new particle that uses clustering to give itself more mass.

Are you seriously suggesting that physicists don’t know how to do long division?

You can’t understand science using magical thinking, I’m afraid. Just because two phenomena are similar in one or more aspects does not imply that they are equivalent. ‘Like breeds like’ is not a law of science, it is a principle of magic, and it is false.

Poor poor common people. They'll never believe they can be just as smart as physicists now.

Do you really think the average man or woman is as smart as a Bohr, a Heisenberg or a Hawking? Really?

This is just another false rumour. I doubt the alleged memo even exists. No Higgs boson or any other previously unknown particle for that matter has been detected.

Poor poor common people. They'll never believe they can be just as smart as physicists now.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Do you really think the average man or woman is as smart as a Bohr, a Heisenberg or a Hawking? Really?

Yes,
yes I do.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by Drala
reply to post by forall2see

 

THis might be silly of me....but we live in a fractal universe...they aren't getting the picture...its infinite...as soon as they find a new particle they will say the same thing as when they found the atom...its the smallest part blah blah blah...then chances are they will think of another new particle and in essnce if we concieve of it, it is possible...ever zoom into a fractal....see how it can be redundant...

I hate to ruin the surprise...i recently posted my idea that they will eventually relize the thought of something smaller is the smallest...as it brings the concieved particle into existence in our group consciousness...

THE GOD PARTICLE IS THOUGHT...hence the spiritual garble about right and wrong...thoughts that are infinite in application are godly...anything unsustainable is blasphemous....i hope they do not already know this and aren't wasting the billions it took to build it....

Oh and thats the other part...see how big that thing is...imagine the cost of the new 1 they will say we need to build....lmao itll be like around our equator or something stupid before they give up...its like pie...3.14 is good enough mostly...3.141592654 fit on most calculators...it still cannot define the area of a circle...or the volume...its getting kinda silly i think....LMAO

PS Nassim Haramein unified field theory...swiss born, Canadian grown....now in Hawaii...and his work is under review...once they get thier head around it...we are off into infinity...you know that spiral they portray in the Mayan Calaendar....well get ready the rabbit whole is infinite....but the journey will be within us...not outside banging tiny tiny lil fugurative rocks together....LMAO

I like your style of thinking. I too have wondered the same. Heck, when I was in school we were taught that the ATOM was the smallest particle there was... besides the nucleus, protons and neutrons of course. I always questioned how the atom could be the smallest when in fact the protons, neutrons and electrons were inside it buzzing about.

To go opposite your theory if smaller and smaller.... think about this. WE could simply be an atom sized molecule on a more grand spectrum. Maybe the tip of a blade of grass, in an environment which time follows a much longer path. MAYBE... just MAYBE, they are moving the lawn as we speak

reply to post by lifeissacred


This has absolutely nothing to do with finding any sort of "god" or higher power.

It is only a nickname given to a particle that may or may not exist, and may or may not grant mass to an object.

reply to post by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by Astyanax
Do you really think the average man or woman is as smart as a Bohr, a Heisenberg or a Hawking? Really?

Yes,

yes I do.

Well, that explains your willingness to blunder in where Ph.D’s fear to tread. Good luck with your speculations.

reply to post by Astyanax

 

Mass is energy. Energy that falls into a black hole adds to the black hole mass. How hard is that to understand?

I commented on the other thread with a long drawn out explanation about how they won't find the "god" particle(Higgs-Boson), and the comment that I quoted above explains exactly why they won't find it.

The strength of the attraction of the particles is enough to explain the mass of an element, look at all the evidence around us proving this concept, the most important one being the force(gravity) that holds our feet to the earth. It is also proven that less "gravity" means less "weight"(for explanation sakes). For example, here on earth a person that weighs 100 pounds will weight 5/6th less on the moon because the moon has 5/6th less gravity than the earth.

It would seem to me that the strength of the attraction of the particles that make up an element would sufficiently explain it's mass, and some of these data anomalies that they constantly find is that attraction being broken when smashed together at high velocities.

In the highly unlikey event of the higgs boson discovery, I dont think there will be any technology spinoffs as none of the other particles discovered at the accelerators have yielded any tech spinoffs

reply to post by Timing

The strength of the attraction of the particles is enough to explain the mass of an element, look at all the evidence around us proving this concept, the most important one being the force(gravity) that holds our feet to the earth.

Gravity isn’t the only effect of mass. How does attraction between particles explain inertia, momentum and friction?

Update:

"CERN physics lab downplays claim of key discovery"
www.physorg.com...

reply to post by Astyanax

Gravity isn’t the only effect of mass. How does attraction between particles explain inertia, momentum and friction?

First, I should disclose I'm not a scientist and don't fully believe the Theory of Relativity simply for the fact that Einstein simply chose to ignore his observation of what he called "spooky action at a distance" the reason being it would completely invalidate his Theory of Relativity because the Theorem states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and this action that he observed violates this principle.

The answers you seek to your questions of inertia, friction, and momentum would all need new explanations. I'm not stating that the model that we currently follow is wrong, I'm simply suggesting that it isn't as broad as what we currently believe. What I have noticed that is that a lot of naturally occurring objects on a microscopic level happen to be extremely similar to objects on a galactic scale.

For a simple example, planets and moons resemble atoms. Our solar system of all planets and moons would be equivalent to an element. Our solar system being an element in our galaxy. Our galaxy being an "compound". Taking it a step further when looking at the Hubble Deep Field photograph we notice all types of galaxies that are all shaped differently, some are even in the form of spirals. The things here on earth that most resemble galaxies are clouds and so on and so forth.

reply to post by Larryman



Thanks for the update my friend. I suppose we will have to wait and see what comes about.

Question: Could the discovery of this Higgs take us closer into developing such technology as would both Create and De-create mass at will?

Originally posted by forall2see
reply to post by Larryman

 

Thanks for the update my friend. I suppose we will have to wait and see what comes about.

Question: Could the discovery of this Higgs take us closer into developing such technology as would both Create and De-create mass at will?

They seek the Higgs particle to complete their 'standard model' of everything. If they find it, I would hope they could use it to do as you suggested. But if they don't find the Higgs, then I favor the "Extended Heim Theory" - as a different 'theory of everything'. It proposes the ability to eliminate mass of matter by an alternative method.

reply to post by Timing

I'm not a scientist and don't fully believe the Theory of Relativity

Okay. That’s fine, really. It’s probably not going to make a difference to your life whether or not you believe it. It’s not like disbelieving in gravity, for instance; it won’t kill you.

However, Einsteinian relativity is a fact, whether you believe it or not. No scientist – certainly no physicist – questions it.

Einstein simply chose to ignore his observation of what he called "spooky action at a distance" the reason being it would completely invalidate his Theory of Relativity because the Theorem states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and this action that he observed violates this principle.

This is completely untrue, though I don’t blame you for believing it, since stories of this kind are part of popular culture and the internet is absolutely lousy with them.

Far from ignoring it, Einstein was one of the first people to notice that causal ‘entanglement’ of particles was a consequence of quantum theory. Hence the fact that the effects of such entanglement are known collectively as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

You must remember that, during Einstein’s lifetime, entanglement had not been demonstrated experimentally. That only happened in 1972, seventeen years after he died. With no experimental evidence to back it up, entanglement looked very much like an error – as if the quantum theorists had got their sums wrong. And that is what Einstein, together with other pioneers of quantum mechanics like Erwin Schrödinger, suspected had really happened. Frankly, at the time that really was the more tenable hypothesis.

Quantum entanglement doesn’t really violate relativity. It is only information that passes instantaneously from one entangled particle to its distant twin, and that information does not actually travel across the intervening space; we merely see the consequences of it occurring. A subtle distinction, I know, but an important one.

You can read more about all that here.

The answers you seek to your questions of inertia, friction, and momentum would all need new explanations.

I’m not seeking answers, merely showing you the objections that prevent us from believing that gravity is equivalent to mass. I am not a scientist either; I’m an ex-physics student, not a physicist. I am perfectly happy with the standard explanations of phenomena provided by science, though when we get into quantum mechanics and post-Einsteinian theoretical physics, I believe we have a long way to go and are presently in danger of losing our way. That doesn’t mean our present ideas are all wrong; simply that they are not correct enough, or not testable. Some probably never will be. In the end, we always have to explain something in terms of something else, and when we get right down to the nitty-gritty of physical reality, there is no ‘something else’ in terms of which to explain it. Understanding must have a stop there, I think.

For a simple example, planets and moons resemble atoms.

They don’t. Not in the least. The Bohr model of the atom, with a sun-like nucleus around which electrons move in predefined orbits, was always just an imaginative convenience, never a physical reality. And pretty soon, as our understanding of the quantum world began to develop, it wasn’t even a convenience any more, except in grade-school chemistry; it was just wrong. However, being simple and easy to grasp, and having been taught in schools for so long, it has remained fixed in popular culture even though it has been obsolete in science these sixty years or more.

I don’t mean to be a party pooper, but lay folk like us are not really entitled to dissenting opinions in science. We can hold them, of course, but it’s a bit like a lifetime vegetarian holding an opinion about the tastiest way to cook steak.