Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Their game is to get as far away from possible from God any all references to Him. When the name becomes a refence TO God, many of them resent the fact that God seems to have pulled a fast one on them, and that even the name that stuck was not their vile little desired one...
But wait, why would an atheist resent the discovery of this particle?
Physicists, who are the only people who normally talk about the Higgs, never call it "the God particle".False. Almost everyone calls it that!
Kaku is a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk and is prone to spouting about all sorts of things. No, physicists do not call the collider a "Genesis machine".If we resort to higgs boson or some such name, they start wavering and admit it is still not known. You can call Christmas xmas if you like, but we all know what is being talked aboutThey even refer to the collider as the genesis machine!!!! Not just hilbillies either. Here is an example..
"This is a huge step toward unraveling Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 1 - what happened in the beginning," physicist Michio Kaku told The Associated Press.
"This is a Genesis machine. It'll help to recreate the most glorious event in the history of the universe."
Atom Smasher Could Reveal "The Beginning" - CBS News
Their game is to get as far away from possible from God any all references to Him. When the name becomes a refence TO God, many of them resent the fact that God seems to have pulled a fast one on them, and that even the name that stuck was not their vile little desired one.
Correct on all counts.From what I understand this recent "discovery" of the higgs only proves what they've been assuming for years. It doesn't really change a whole lot. Now they can point and say "hey looky there. That's the force carrying particle for mass". The term "god particle" is a bit of a misnomer I believe.
LifeToTheFullest! said:Correct on all counts.
One of the hallmarks of scientific method is models that make predictions.
Whether physicists are normal I will leave for another thread. However, the now famous God particle from the Genesis Machine is talked about by untold millions! The genie is out of the box, they cannot control it just because they get angry about God being in the picture front and center! They must grin and bear it.Physicists, who are the only people who normally talk about the Higgs, never call it "the God particle".
Ha, so now when a physicist calls something by a name you call him names. Try to deal with reality. The creation debate and all particles must include God, or they are resigned to the trash heap of utter insignificance.Kaku is a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk and is prone to spouting about all sorts of things. No, physicists do not call the collider a "Genesis machine".
Yes it is!! That is why they get worked up. It describes God associated with small stuff involved in creation.Honestly, I think that the disdain for the nickname "The God Particle" is partially because it's sensationalistic, and partially because it's not descriptive at all.
Not confirmed yet...remember? Maybe it would be better to say.."likely associated in the process that is not understood of manufacturing mass"?A Higgs Boson is just an excitation in the Higgs Field, a quantum field that gives particles their mass.
Ha. That's what they sort of think. Not a fact by any means yet.Most Higgs Bosons are "virtual" and give mass to a particle existing in the Higgs Field (I put virtual in parentheses because a virtual particle does exist, just not for very long). The Higgs Boson that the LHC is looking for and has possibly found is a rarer, short-lived "real" boson that exists independently of other particles moving through the field.
He is involved in all things and by Him all thing consist. This is news? The God particle is more accurate than your imaginary field monikers!That's really very important, but "the mass particle" would be a more descriptive nickname. "The God Particle" is not only inaccurate, but I'm also not entirely comfortable with it because it's a little offensive to attach God's name to a fluctuation in a quantum field.
I've called Kaku names for years.Ha, so now when a physicist calls something by a name you call him names.
Unconscious irony appears to be your strong suit.Try to deal with reality.
From what I understand this recent "discovery" of the higgs only proves what they've been assuming for years. It doesn't really change a whole lot. Now they can point and say "hey looky there. That's the force carrying particle for mass". The term "god particle" is a bit of a misnomer I believe.
GlobalWolf2010 said:Well, the Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson, but there were other versions of the Higgs Mechanism that wouldn't have needed to include it. This goes a long way toward proving that the Standard Model is the most accurate, since it was the last particle that I know of predicted in the Standard Model that had never been observed.
The philosophical nerd inside of me wants to ask, "what is is?"
Thanks. Invisible evidence seems to be your strong suit. But you see the God particle is just what the thing has come to be called. Not just by uneducated either. Here is a few students using the term....I've called Kaku names for years.
Unconscious irony appears to be your strong suit.
Well, the Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson,
but there were other versions of the Higgs Mechanism that wouldn't have needed to include it. This goes a long way toward proving that the Standard Model is the most accurate, since it was the last particle that I know of predicted in the Standard Model that had never been observed.
The philosophical nerd inside of me wants to ask, "what is is?"
walkingxshadow said:Haha I'm not a physicist I just try not to be completely ignorant of big goings on.
Good question. Science has no clue is the answer.
Not sure philosophy knows how God manufactured mass from energy actually. Perhaps philosophy might help the science folks say how many little universe stuffed in singularities could fit on the head of a pin?Ah, but theology and philosophy do. Out of a variety of possible things, the thing which is real is the one which is not only possible but also actual. Existing in actuality rather than just potentiality, in sort of Aristotelian terms. Frankly, it's also the basis of any objective sense of reality. It's something that we know intuitively, but if you think about how something is totally existing right in front of you, then it makes your brain hurt a little. Also, it makes you sound like a hippie watching a lava lamp.
I just thought that saying that something wasn't philosophical and then saying, "it just is" was kind of funny, given that there's a bit of a joke that philosophy is basically contemplating a wall and asking if it exists.
GlobalWolf2010 said:The closest I've ever coming to being a physicist is playing Half Life 2. Didn't want to give you the impression that I was good at math
Ah, but theology and philosophy do. Out of a variety of possible things, the thing which is real is the one which is not only possible but also actual. Existing in actuality rather than just potentiality, in sort of Aristotelian terms. Frankly, it's also the basis of any objective sense of reality. It's something that we know intuitively, but if you think about how something is totally existing right in front of you, then it makes your brain hurt a little. Also, it makes you sound like a hippie watching a lava lamp.
I just thought that saying that something wasn't philosophical and then saying, "it just is" was kind of funny, given that there's a bit of a joke that philosophy is basically contemplating a wall and asking if it exists.
As I said, physicists don't call it that. Since it's their baby, they should get to name it.Tha But you see the God particle is just what the thing has come to be called. Not just by uneducated either. Here is a few students using the term....
Exactly correct. Pure speculation, nothing else. Going ahead and calculating something measurable based on that assumption turns the speculation into a prediction. Testing that prediction by doing experiments turns it into physics. All of this was done for the Higgs mechanism years ago, when the ratio of the masses of the W and Z bosons was predicted based on it. Finding the Higgs boson itself suggests (although it certainly doesn't yet prove) that the Higgs mechanism works through the simplest possible Higgs, rather than some more elaborate set of particles.The assumption that something pervades all of space is just speculation.
No, it's not. The Higgs field is not at all vague, however. It's quite well defined mathematically.As to some vague 'field' that transfers energy to mass....that is not saying much!
Yup -- it's all there, written down in textbooks in great detail. Just learn the math, and you too can understand the Higgs.Anyone think they can tell us precisely what a higgs field is?
They didn't though. Guess we need to deal with reality. It is commonly called the God Particle.As I said, physicists don't call it that. Since it's their baby, they should get to name it.
Vague and fairly meaningless. What does it mean? 'IF a field exists of some unknown nature (higgs we can call it) and mass was made using it on earth somehow (we know not how) then some steps on the way would involve what we can call bosons that would have to be a certain mass and ratio for physical matter......then blah blah'Exactly correct. Pure speculation, nothing else. Going ahead and calculating something measurable based on that assumption turns the speculation into a prediction. Testing that prediction by doing experiments turns it into physics. All of this was done for the Higgs mechanism years ago, when the ratio of the masses of the W and Z bosons was predicted based on it.
Can you elaborate and explain what a simple or complicated or any other kind of "possible Higgs" really is!!?Finding the Higgs boson itself suggests (although it certainly doesn't yet prove) that the Higgs mechanism works through the simplest possible Higgs, rather than some more elaborate set of particles.
Numbers have to represent something. We can look at your numbers if you like.No, it's not. The Higgs field is not at all vague, however. It's quite well defined mathematically.
Balderdash.Yup -- it's all there, written down in textbooks in great detail. Just learn the math, and you too can understand the Higgs.
walkingxshadow said:Haha I've taken alg based physics and will be taking physical chemistry starting in the fall. Which is essentially the love child of physics and chemistry....its gunna be fun*sarcasm*
GlobalWolf2010 said:Hm...I knew someone who took that once. She made an A somehow, and I still wonder what sort of alien creature removed her brain and replaced it with that of one of its own people. I've taken some chemistry, but I'm really more into anatomy and biology. I thought that I wanted to be a doctor for a while, but yeah, I'm terrified of the idea that someone else's life might depend on my ability not to go air-headed
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?