Explaining the God particle

[DontTreadOnMike]

Ah. I guess I just don't really "grok" the whole arrogance claim.

As you already surmised, I wouldn't expect an atheist to be offended by the discovery, just the nickname that was given to it.

Oh well then carry on haha

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

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.

Actually Peter Higgs says he dislikes the name because it might offend religious people, not because the syllable "God" burns atheists' ears and causes us to melt. Religious people really do like to make themselves more important and central to the issues than they are. Really, no one cares.

Let's hear from the guy who originally gave it the nickname:

Lederman said he gave it the nickname "the God particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,"[71][72][77] but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the God**** Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."[72]

 

[sfs]

They didn't though. Guess we need to deal with reality. It is commonly called the God Particle.

They did name it. They called it the Higgs Boson, and still call it that.

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'

In other words, you have no clue about the physics involved in the Higgs, don't intend to find out, and would rather spend your time mocking those who do understand it. Got it.

Can you elaborate and explain what a simple or complicated or any other kind of "possible Higgs" really is!!?
Numbers have to represent something. We can look at your numbers if you like.

No, you can't. You don't begin to know enough math.

 

[dad]

Actually Peter Higgs says he dislikes the name because it might offend religious people, not because the syllable "God" burns atheists' ears and causes us to melt.

OK...so we have one vote.

Religious people really do like to make themselves more important and central to the issues than they are. Really, no one cares.

No one cares whether you want to rule God out.

Let's hear from the guy who originally gave it the nickname:

That could be God.....using some poor sod? Having a name catch on is the trick, I suspect, more than being the first one to mouth it..for whatever reason.

Now..we have experiments listed in the bible. They show the God particle in action. Observed. Repeated. Precise.

Now we see science starting to realize there likely is a process for mass creation and certain particles probably involved!! Thousands of years later!!!! Wow. The bible is truly higher science.

 

[dad]

They did name it. They called it the Higgs Boson, and still call it that.

Right. We know that nerds insist on calling the God particle that. Most of us call it what it is though.

In other words, you have no clue about the physics involved in the Higgs, don't intend to find out, and would rather spend your time mocking those who do understand it. Got it.

False. They smash stuff and dream dreams. They insist on leaving God out. Got it. Care to cite the 'physics' involved in the so called higgs field!!!!! Newsflash: more than physics is involved.

No, you can't. You don't begin to know enough math.

Silly canard. Math has to represent something. For example e in E=MC2 we have E representing energy. In the math involved in the silly higgs fiasco...you will find that it has to represent stuff also. Your math is just a way to cloud the issue and mask ignorance.

The higgs field may best be defined as 'the fishbowl field'!

 

[mkatzwork]

Care to cite the 'physics' involved in the so called higgs field!!!!!

Shall we start with Goldstone's theorem?

Silly canard. Math has to represent something. For example e in E=MC2 we have E representing energy. In the math involved in the silly higgs fiasco...you will find that it has to represent stuff also. Your math is just a way to cloud the issue and mask ignorance.

Please point to an example of a mathematical symbol in any of the math underpinning the Higgs field hypothesis that you feel "doesn't represent anything".

 

[dad]

Shall we start with Goldstone's theorem?

Sure, if you like. Go ahead and say something about it.

Please point to an example of a mathematical symbol in any of the math underpinning the Higgs field hypothesis that you feel "doesn't represent anything".

Hardly anything in there that does! (except present earth state stuff).



Now, I like to look at basics first, personally. For example scalar fields, that are involved.

"
Dimensional analysis and scaling

Physical quantities in these scalar field theories may have dimensions of length, time or mass, or some combination of the three. However, in a relativistic theory, any quantity t, with dimensions of time, can be 'converted' into a length,

, by using the velocity of light, c.
Scalar field theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, right away we are dealing with the physical, and time for example. Also the earth state speed of light, no less!!


But we could get bogged down in this stuff. The issue is making mass out of energy, using the God particle! I suggest that if the particle is involved, that God has to be involved also.


We have examples of experiments where mass was manufactured in the bible, repeated, and observed no less. There was a particular force that was in each experiment that caused the mass producing process, that Higgs has not even suspected yet. Far as I am concerned, Higgs and the Cern scientists are like toddlers in white coats!

 

[mkatzwork]

Sure, if you like. Go ahead and say something about it.

Hardly anything in there that does! (except present earth state stuff).

Pick one, for ease of discussion. Should be easy for you since you consider scalar fields "basic".

Now, I like to look at basics first, personally. For example scalar fields, that are involved.

"
Dimensional analysis and scaling

Physical quantities in these scalar field theories may have dimensions of length, time or mass, or some combination of the three. However, in a relativistic theory, any quantity t, with dimensions of time, can be 'converted' into a length,

, by using the velocity of light, c.
Scalar field theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, right away we are dealing with the physical, and time for example. Also the earth state speed of light, no less!!


But we could get bogged down in this stuff. The issue is making mass out of energy, using the God particle! I suggest that if the particle is involved, that God has to be involved also.

You could get bogged down in it... I got a degree in it. Mass isn't "made out of" energy...they are equivalent. The rest of what you write is quote-mining you don't understand. Can you express anything about scalar fields or hey, even relativity in your own words?

 

[mkatzwork]

So, right away we are dealing with the physical, and time for example. Also the earth state speed of light, no less!!

Earth state? What does that even mean?
C2 is a mathematical constant where c is representing the speed of a photon in a vacuum. It has nothing to do with "earth states".

If the CERN scientists are toddlers, then you're not even at the fertilized egg stage...

 

[dad]

Pick one, for ease of discussion. Should be easy for you since you consider scalar fields "basic".

I think you are asking me to pick something within the scalar field area, is that right?

You could get bogged down in it... I got a degree in it. Mass isn't "made out of" energy...they are equivalent. The rest of what you write is quote-mining you don't understand. Can you express anything about scalar fields or hey, even relativity in your own words?

I actually tend to agree...mass was made from nothing. However, I think the context of what I was referring to was now. Here...after creation.

Jesus made mass by speaking the word of God, just as He spoke the universe into existence some thousands of years before that. To assemble stuff (if the God particle is involved or not)-the proper forces must be used. You may smash stuff, but God is a far greater scientist than you.

By the way, what it is you think mass is made from? As for your degree, that is fine, but I notice people that put a degree out front usually come out firing, then start shooting blanks, and head for cover. Maybe you will be the exception..

Relativity? That is relative only to the earth state we live in at present. That is the biggest thing one needs to know, to start to get it right! As for scalar fields, I already mentioned in a quote, how that time in involved, and present state light speed. Guess you are not yet aware of the implications, and how that slaps your numbers around something fierce. OK. Carry on.

 

[dad]

Earth state? What does that even mean?

Ha. I thought you might not yet be aware of this. It means gravity and time and laws and space and all things that work and exist in this temporal state on and near earth we now live in. According to the bible, this heavens and earth we know will pass away, they are not permanent as is. So what applies on earth now, is NOT relative to what will be, or, I posit, what was long ago. Probably to some extent, even what exists far far away as we speak.

C2 is a mathematical constant where c is representing the speed of a photon in a vacuum. It has nothing to do with "earth states".

Absurd. Of course it has everything to do with how light must behave in our temporal earth state fishbowl. Time also. Do not assume time, for example is as we know it on earth in deep space.

If the CERN scientists are toddlers, then you're not even at the fertilized egg stage...

Ha. Truth be told, I cheat, and read God's word, so have gotten way way way ahead of all of em.

They do not seem to even be aware that this physical only temporal near earth state is a drop in the bucket of reality!!!!!!!!! The poor intelectual toddlers take 'straining at a little nat' to a whole new level!!! They also get degrees for swallowing camels.

 

[ProScribe]

Once again, that tiny particle would show up in my vision when I close my eyes...

 

[dad]

Once again, that tiny particle would show up in my vision when I close my eyes...

Did it speak?

 

[Farinata]

Absurd. Of course it has everything to do with how light must behave in our temporal earth state fishbowl. Time also. Do not assume time, for example is as we know it on earth in deep space.

The Omphalos hypothesis is uninteresting because it lacks explanatory value. I can posit that we're actually part of a complex computer simulation like in the Matrix. Either way it doesn't get you anywhere. Furthermore even if one were to present evidence that seems to indicate the hypothesis is false, you can just come up some other elaborate even more unlikely explanation in which the hypothesis holds. Epicycles upon epicycles.

 

[dad]

The Omphalos hypothesis is uninteresting because it lacks explanatory value. I can posit that we're actually part of a complex computer simulation like in the Matrix.

You can posit that our laws applied. It doesn't get you anywhere.

Furthermore even if one were to present evidence that seems to indicate the hypothesis is false, you can just come up some other elaborate even more unlikely explanation in which the hypothesis holds. Epicycles upon epicycles.

The issue here is what science claims...it is made up.

 

[Farinata]

You can posit that our laws applied. It doesn't get you anywhere.

Speculation -> hypothesis -> prediction

Test the prediction against empirical evidence and see whether you get a consistent framework. Further test that framework in other areas/experiments and see if it comes back clean.

The issue here is what science claims...it is made up.

All knowledge proceeds axiomatically. Any you possess is not exempt but is on likely shakier foundations.

 

[walkingxshadow]

Ok I'm unsubscribing. This flame thread keeps popping up in my user cp. It has gotten far away from just a discussion of explaining what the higgs boson IS. Not what some who imagines himself an authority on everything says it is. I doubt he even has an advanced degree in physics cuz that's what you'd truly need to qualify you to make any claims about the higgs. So why do y'all keep arguing when he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. All I know about it is what I've seen on tv and read on wikipedia. But I doubt anyone will take this post seriously and you will continue this pointless arguement. So I bid you all farewell.

 

[dad]

Ok I'm unsubscribing. This flame thread keeps popping up in my user cp. It has gotten far away from just a discussion of explaining what the higgs boson IS. Not what some who imagines himself an authority on everything says it is. I doubt he even has an advanced degree in physics cuz that's what you'd truly need to qualify you to make any claims about the higgs. So why do y'all keep arguing when he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. All I know about it is what I've seen on tv and read on wikipedia. But I doubt anyone will take this post seriously and you will continue this pointless arguement. So I bid you all farewell.

Yes..time and many things are built into the equations. Sorry that fries your tomatoe. Cheers.

 

[dad]

Speculation -> hypothesis -> prediction

Not applicable out of the fishbowl of the earth at the present time. Not applicable to the future or past. For example, name a prediction about your perceived first ancestor? Name a prediction about how to create mass?

Test the prediction against empirical evidence and see whether you get a consistent framework. Further test that framework in other areas/experiments and see if it comes back clean.

Subject to your testing ability.

All knowledge proceeds axiomatically. Any you possess is not exempt but is on likely shakier foundations.

Nonsense.

 

[mkatzwork]

I think you are asking me to pick something within the scalar field area, is that right?

Anything you like within the mathematics that underpins the Higgs field hypothesis.

I actually tend to agree...mass was made from nothing. However, I think the context of what I was referring to was now. Here...after creation.

Uh - I was referring to mass-energy equivalence, pointing out that when you say mass is 'made out of something' you simply demonstrate that you're not really familiar with what mass is, except for 'that stuff we see around us'. Mass isn't defined like that at the level of physics we're discussing. I'm not sure if you're confusing mass and matter or if you're just not understanding the whole lot...either way your concept of what mass actually 'is' is wrong (but only in the sense that you are subscribing to the common misconception of what mass "is").

Jesus made mass by speaking the word of God, just as He spoke the universe into existence some thousands of years before that. To assemble stuff (if the God particle is involved or not)-the proper forces must be used. You may smash stuff, but God is a far greater scientist than you.

By the way, what it is you think mass is made from? As for your degree, that is fine, but I notice people that put a degree out front usually come out firing, then start shooting blanks, and head for cover. Maybe you will be the exception..

Firstly - do you mean mass or matter? Not the same thing. Are God and Jesus bound by the concepts of the conservation of mass/energy? We know of four fundamental 'forces', or are you proposing new ones? What do you think mass is 'made from', since you phrase the question that way (if you decline to answer you'd be correct and justified - since the question itself malformed - but you should know that would somewhat make it look silly that you asked it in the first place)?

Relativity? That is relative only to the earth state we live in at present. That is the biggest thing one needs to know, to start to get it right!

Uh....I think you don't quite understand either special or general relativity. Let's take an example - GR predicts gravitational lensing, a prediction that has been confirmed many times now - and that's happening far away from us in the universe. The fact we are an observer to it does not make us special.

If you're supposing that the observation is taking place on earth and that's what you're meaning by 'earth state', then you're effectively ignoring the ability we have to make predictions about unobserved phenomena outside of our own 'state'. For example, we know the orbital period of Pluto, but no human being has ever observed the orbital period, because it hasn't completed a full orbit of the Sun in the time we've known it existed...

As for scalar fields, I already mentioned in a quote, how that time in involved, and present state light speed. Guess you are not yet aware of the implications, and how that slaps your numbers around something fierce. OK. Carry on.

This is a paragraph that appears to be in the English language, but its meaningless to me - 'time in involved and present state light speed'...did you miss some words out? Can you clarify what numbers are 'slapped around' by the "implications" of whatever it is you are talking about? Since you're talking about math derived from general relativity and fairly established scalar mathematics, I think examples would be in order, since your claim is extraordinary (if it means what I think it means, which I'm not sure it does, because it's so strangely worded).