Explaining the God particle

[dad]

The Higgs boson has nothing to do with light.

So is is safe to say then, that C is not used in any math regarding the Higgs field?

 

[selfinflikted]

With recent news, it might be good to explain what the particle is.

Here is a short version

--God created the world and many things that are physical. He used materials, many very small. There is speculation one of the smallest may be involved in sort of 'manufacturing mass'. It is logical God would have used such a thing if they are right...hence a God particle is a good name! Kids...it just means another little thingie God used. Now remember also that this thing they think they found is on earth. We cannot imply it would exist far far away and long ago. Especially before anything was created!

If I missed anything feel free to chirp in....

Somehow, I've missed the explanation in there somewhere.

 

[sfs]

So is is safe to say then, that C is not used in any math regarding the Higgs field?

No.

 

[mkatzwork]

I think you mean (in your own terms) the observable universe? So where is the imaginary event horizon you refer to supposed to be then?

What concept of "event horizon" are you mumbling about? You're completely confused here, or willfully trying to obfuscate a point you don't understand.

Absolute horizons occur around black holes and are generally called event horizons, they're not physical things per se but they are simply the point beyond which it is impossible to escape the gravitational pull of the object in question. There are many kinds of horizon - they are broadly speaking mathematical concepts.

OK, so now we get into black holes.

That's what we were talking about in the first place. You brought up the notion of an event horizon having something to do with "creation", which it doesn't.

But now you're on the right part of the discussion - can you explain the concept of time from a photon passing the event horizon of a black hole from your worldview?

First, can you show us one please?
I do have my doubts, you are right.

How about Cygnus X-1?

Anything that has distance time light energy or etc etc etc in it. Usually you use a symbol for the stuff.

You're just the very model of erudition - "for the stuff". That's not vague at all.

We don't use a symbol for 'light', for starters, light being in the layman's sense just the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that causes a reaction from our optic nerve that is interpreted as a visible phenomenon. We might use symbols for the properties of photons, the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field.

So - you're objecting really to every single term that represents something physical in the universe in every mathematical equation ever? Wow.

Who said in the fishbowl? If a particle travels in the fishbowl of earth and vicinity, then one supposes that it obeys our laws, no?

Why would it obey 'our' laws? You think the speed of light in a vacuum is what it is because we said it was?

Also, since the laws of physics have remained constant within the fishbowl, it holds that the fishbowl should have a definable size. Since you're claiming 4500 years since the last major 'state' change, we should be able to safely assume that the fishbowl extends approximately 4500 light years in all directions...no?

Look at the world today. Sin can be measured. It is prevalent. If a just man sins 7 times a day, and you claim only 9000 sins, then what is that 3 and a half years?

Actually it's over 9000!

Its Over 9000!!! [Original Video and Audio] - YouTube

Annnnnd we're back.

So if Sin can be measured, we can logically ascribe a unit to it to frame that measurement. What is the unit for Sin, please? Are there GigaSins, MicroSins and MegaSins? Please say there are. That would be so entertaining.

When you say "those" equations, you need to post some.

Ok, so we've established for the record that you are ignorant in entirety of anything to do with the mathematics underpinning the hypothesis of the Higgs field, which is why you've been unable to pick a single term that you object to - an easy task that would be entirely in your interest - if you have a genuine objection to a particular term, you could just go - here, look at this term, here is my objection. But you don't, so we can safely assume you can't.

Moving on, perhaps you could find a term within this equation that you object to, this is a particular expression of the HB Lagrangian. As we know from prior posts that you think this stuff is simple, can you point to the term(s) that show that the HB should interact with itself?

L = 1⁄2(∂μ&#9632 - λv2σ2 - λ(vσ3 + 1⁄4σ4)

 

[RaiseTheDead]

So if Sin can be measured, we can logically ascribe a unit to it to frame that measurement. What is the unit for Sin, please?

I'm thinking this should've been a Monty Python sketch

 

[mkatzwork]

So is is safe to say then, that C is not used in any math regarding the Higgs field?

Oops.

C is not 'light'.

C is a constant that represents the speed that a particle with mass zero (for example a photon, the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field) will travel at in a vacuum in a straight line provided nothing else interacts with it.

The problem you have with your crazy, crazy idea of trying to show a 'different state past' is you cannot just arbitrarily adjust constants - C for example, is an unchanging constant regardless of the observer, this is what General and Special relativity demonstrates with a very large degree of accuracy both here on Earth AND out there in the rest of the universe, well beyond your imaginary fishbowl.

It doesn't matter whether you're in the fishbowl or not, it doesn't matter WHERE you are - C is unchanging.

If C had changed in the past for say, an out of fishbowl observer, then mass-energy equivalence throws up a problem - if 4500 years ago, suddenly things changed in terms of C, the law of conservation of energy would have been violated because each unit of mass would have an increased amount of energy.


However - I'm still puzzled on a larger scale as to why you need to construct a system whereby God can alter the physical laws or state of the universe to make things happen. Why is this necessary, exactly?

The answer is - it's completely unnecessary even from your own standpoint. Why does God have to change the state, when he could just perform whatever miracle he required at the time with complete disregard for the laws of nature? Why does there have to be a change of state? Why the two-step process?

It seems like you arbitrarily invented the idea of a changed state on his behalf. I seem to remember that if you look at Revelations it says that anybody who adds or takes away will be in the naughty books...nowhere in the Bible does it say "and God changed the speed of light".

You could simply say - "I believe there was a Flood, the laws of physics still applied, which is what would make it a miracle" - action in spite of those laws.

It also follows that if he merely altered the laws of physics to create a new state - a state wherein he could cause a global Flood, his actions in that state were no longer miraculous, defeating the entire object. Your ideas are entirely redundant at best and ridiculous AND redundant at worst.

 

[mkatzwork]

I'm thinking this should've been a Monty Python sketch

He IS a bit like the black knight...undefeated, in his own mind.

Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube

 

[Michael]

However - I'm still puzzled on a larger scale as to why you need to construct a system whereby God can alter the physical laws or state of the universe to make things happen. Why is this necessary, exactly?

From my perspective that comment is quite an irony overload considering your attachment to inflation and dark energy. Dad's "different state past" is not technically any different than an "inflation phase" in terms of what either of you can actually demonstrate empirically. It's six of one, half dozen of the other IMO.

 

[mkatzwork]

From my perspective that comment is quite an irony overload considering your attachment to inflation and dark energy. Dad's "different state past" is not technically any different than an "inflation phase" in terms of what either of you can actually demonstrate empirically. It's six of one, half dozen of the other IMO.

There goes Michael, trying to derail a thread to preach about plasma...

There are no empirical observations supporting a 'different state past'. None. Zero. Not even a contested one.

You know that. So go away unless you want to stay on topic.

 

[variant]

Well it didn't take long for the fnarring at the name God particle to turn to "Oh look, this totally was predicted by our belief all along" once it was shown to actually exist.

And a good example of the problem of mixing religion into your science.

Explanations that explain everything, explain nothing.

 

[dad]

Somehow, I've missed the explanation in there somewhere.

Look in the middle of the quote...you will find this

"may be involved in sort of 'manufacturing mass'. It is logical God would have used such a thing if they are right."

 

[dad]

No.

Ah..then I guess he was wrong.

 

[dad]

What concept of "event horizon" are you mumbling about? You're completely confused here, or willfully trying to obfuscate a point you don't understand.

Hey forget all concepts of one. See any on earth? Moon? I guess it exists in your head only.

Absolute horizons occur around black holes and are generally called event horizons, they're not physical things per se but they are simply the point beyond which it is impossible to escape the gravitational pull of the object in question. There are many kinds of horizon - they are broadly speaking mathematical concepts.

Yeah yeah...however what you use a black hole to explain...could actually be something else. Have you seen a black hole in our earth or solar system?

That's what we were talking about in the first place. You brought up the notion of an event horizon having something to do with "creation", which it doesn't.

Hey...they toss that bogus concept and name around when referring to the big bang. So if you want to talk about imaginary horizons, be clear!!

But now you're on the right part of the discussion - can you explain the concept of time from a photon passing the event horizon of a black hole from your worldview?

You would need to prove there were black holes.

How about Cygnus X-1?

Can you prove it is bigger than a kitchen table and further than 2 light years? Start there. Until then, you are merely imagining how our laws and space and state would produce what we see. First you need to know what you see!

We don't use a symbol for 'light', for starters, light being in the layman's sense just the band of the electromagnetic spectrum that causes a reaction from our optic nerve that is interpreted as a visible phenomenon. We might use symbols for the properties of photons, the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field.

Yes...C. The speed of light.....trying to sound intelligent?

So - you're objecting really to every single term that represents something physical in the universe in every mathematical equation ever? Wow.

No. You can play with your little terms on earth and near earth. Nowhere else.

Why would it obey 'our' laws? You think the speed of light in a vacuum is what it is because we said it was?

Where was it measured!? On and near earth. No?

Also, since the laws of physics have remained constant within the fishbowl, it holds that the fishbowl should have a definable size. Since you're claiming 4500 years since the last major 'state' change, we should be able to safely assume that the fishbowl extends approximately 4500 light years in all directions...no?

No! You assume our space and time go out that far...proof? All I deduce is that earth had a change. What the universe did how would I know? Did it all change too? Or not? How would we know?

So if Sin can be measured, we can logically ascribe a unit to it to frame that measurement. What is the unit for Sin, please? Are there GigaSins, MicroSins and MegaSins? Please say there are. That would be so entertaining.

I don't find sin entertaining. It has resulted in death and horrors and suffering, and murders, and thefts and adultery, and war, and famines, and genocides, and womd, and pollution, and perversions, and sickness, and...etc.

Ok, so we've established for the record that you are ignorant in entirety of anything to do with the mathematics underpinning the hypothesis of the Higgs field, which is why you've been unable to pick a single term that you object to - an easy task that would be entirely in your interest - if you have a genuine objection to a particular term, you could just go - here, look at this term, here is my objection. But you don't, so we can safely assume you can't.

Everything I looked at regarding that was easily refuted. Now if you have not the guts to put some on the table...fine.

Moving on, perhaps you could find a term within this equation that you object to, this is a particular expression of the HB Lagrangian. As we know from prior posts that you think this stuff is simple, can you point to the term(s) that show that the HB should interact with itself?

L = 1⁄2(∂μ&#9632 - λv2σ2 - λ(vσ3 + 1⁄4σ4)

Before getting to where something should meet something, or whatnot, let us look at what something it is.


I see this at wiki on Lagrangian..

"In classical mechanics, the natural form of the Lagrangian is defined as the kinetic energy, T, of the system minus its potential energy, V.[1] In symbols,

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian



"
The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
The speed, and thus the kinetic energy of a single object is frame-dependent (relative):


Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now it depends as I said on where the thing is! Also what it is! If it is a physical thing in earth state space, then it obeys certain rules. If it was in deep different space and time, and perhaps something more than physical only, why, one supposes it would obey other laws! So..where do you want to imagine your higgs field or whatever!?

Must be a gift, this stuff comes easy to me

 

[Michael]

There goes Michael, trying to derail a thread to preach about plasma...

Actually no. I'm just noting how ironic that particular statement sounds coming from an inflation supporter:

http://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/t.../inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf

There are no empirical observations supporting a 'different state past'. None. Zero. Not even a contested one.

All dad has to do is change his terminology slightly, and instead of using the term "different state past", he can use your lingo and talk about the two states in terms of a "pre inflation" state and a "post inflation" state and use the term "phase transition" to denote the switch. If he finally figures that out and he does that to you, you're in a world of hurt.

Just saying.....

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Actually no. I'm just noting how ironic that particular statement sounds coming from an inflation supporter:

http://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/t.../inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf



All dad has to do is change his terminology slightly, and instead of using the term "different state past", he can use your lingo and talk about the two states in terms of a "pre inflation" state and a "post inflation" state

Hey, let's leave the 70's out of this, ok?

 

[sfs]

Ah..then I guess he was wrong.

No, he was right, more or less. The speed of light enters into many calculations that don't involve light.

 

[jpcedotal]

I am glad we have atheists so they can decipher what is real science and what is not...(sarcasm)

Any science that even makes an attempt to pursue (not explain or prove, only to pursue) God as the energy behind it all immediately gets rebuked.

Way to have an open mind guys and gals. Your own argument against Creationist is staring at you in the mirror.

Luke 6:42 NKJV Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.

 

[Elendur]

I am glad we have atheists so they can decipher what is real science and what is not...(sarcasm)

Any science that even makes an attempt to pursue (not explain or prove, only to pursue) God as the energy behind it all immediately gets rebuked.

Way to have an open mind guys and gals. Your own argument against Creationist is staring at you in the mirror.

Luke 6:42 NKJV Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.

That's usually because that 'science' is basing it's results upon either unfounded assumptions or wildly misinterpreting evidence.

And as for the bible verse... That's non-constructive dirt-slinging.

 

[jpcedotal]

That's usually because that 'science' is basing it's results upon either unfounded assumptions or wildly misinterpreting evidence.

And as for the bible verse... That's non-constructive dirt-slinging.

for you, it is close mindedness

 

[Elendur]

for you, it is close mindedness

What part is 'for me' specifically, and 'for me' what?
Incidentally I also think both are due to close mindedness.