Explaining the God particle

[Nabobalis]

for you, it is close mindedness

Without evidence of your claims, we have no reason to accept them.

 

[Elendur]

Without evidence of your claims, we have no reason to accept them.

Exactly.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

How close are the minds here? (Seems to me if we were all close minded, there might be more agreement)

 

[Elendur]

How close are the minds here? (Seems to me if we were all close minded, there might be more agreement)

What kind of question is that?
Seriously, I think you're just trying to provoke right now.

 

[dad]

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

Well he needs to be clear more or less. My point is clear. That forces and basic concepts are used in the math. Unless those items reflect a reality that applies where the math is insinuating, such as the far universe...etc...then it is a deception.

 

[dad]

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.

When folks hate the word, in science or elsewhere an attitude shows...

 

[RaiseTheDead]

What kind of question is that?

"Close minded" is not part of the language we're using. Perhaps someone means a mind that is closed, perhaps something else is intended?

 

[sfs]

Well he needs to be clear more or less.

Who needs to be clear about what?

My point is clear. That forces and basic concepts are used in the math.

"Force" (in the physics sense) is a concept invented by physicists because it provides a good model for the way the physical universe behaves. The Higgs field is another concept invented by physicists because it provides a good model for the way the physical universe behaves. The math is more complicated in the case of the Higgs, but that just means you need to learn more math.

Unless those items reflect a reality that applies where the math is insinuating, such as the far universe...etc...then it is a deception.

Based on observing the far universe, we can safely conclude that particle physics does indeed behave the same over regions of tens of billions of light years, and that the Higgs field is part of a good model for that physics there as well as here. There is therefore no deception, nothing to worry about, and you can stop posting about the Higgs.

 

[Elendur]

"Close minded" is not part of the language we're using. Perhaps someone means a mind that is closed, perhaps something else is intended?

I was referring why you posted that question.

The form of the question suggests that you're calling all participants not agreeing with you close minded.
And that has no function other than provocation.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I was referring why you posted that question.

The form of the question suggests that you're calling all participants not agreeing with you close minded.
And that has no function other than provocation.

I see no possible way to get that suggestion out of anything I have ever said. Nor does it follow logically from anything in the thread. Try again:

"close minded" is NOT part of the English language. It is meaningless. It is idiomatically incorrect.

What is meant instead?

 

[sfs]

I see no possible way to get that suggestion out of anything I have ever said. Nor does it follow logically from anything in the thread. Try again:

"close minded" is NOT part of the English language. It is meaningless. It is idiomatically incorrect.

What is meant instead?

It's perfectly good English, except that it should be hyphenated. It describes someone with a strong interest in Glenn Close.

 

[Elendur]

I see no possible way to get that suggestion out of anything I have ever said. Nor does it follow logically from anything in the thread. Try again:

"close minded" is NOT part of the English language. It is meaningless. It is idiomatically incorrect.

What is meant instead?

I was referring to this question:

How close are the minds here?

But anyways;
close-minded - definition of close-minded by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

close-mind·ed or closed-mind·ed
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Upon reading your comment again I see what went wrong. You wrote "close" and not "closed".
If you meant close as in how far away the opinions are from each other, I apologize for my misinterpretation.

 

[mkatzwork]

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

Not really, the only concept currently under discussion in this thread that exists in somebody's head is your idea that the laws of physics don't apply at a certain (not very big) distance from Earth.

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?

Why would we expect to see one there?

(If there was one, we'd have...problems. Big problems, depending on its size.)

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!!

Clear about what? You're the only confused person here. Show me an example of big bang cosmology that talks about an event horizon involved in the creation of the cosmos as we see it. Any outside citation of reasonable quality will do. There will be none, so if you feel like not bothering and ceding that you're confused about what an event horizon is that's equally fine.

You would need to prove there were black holes.

Apart from some fringe cosmologies which try and ignore the gravitational limits that exist in nature for a neutron star, the observed evidence supports their existence overwhelmingly - we have numerous examples.

One or two - ah, perhaps that would maybe be a fluke, an anomaly.

But depending on the standard of evidence you're asking for to constitute proof, then the number varies depending on that standard...dynamically proven (an extremely high standard of evidence), maybe a couple of dozen at this juncture.

Homepage for Jerome A. Orosz

If you use lower standards of evidence (ones where other options have been reasonably ruled out but the systems have not been dynamically measured yet, then thousands, potentially more.

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!

I think this analogy may be appropriate to your demonstrated level of physical understanding.

Father Ted explains perspective - YouTube

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

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

How near?

No! You assume our space and time go out that far...proof?

The Milky Way is observed to be approximately 110,000 light years in diameter. How are you proposing we fit the observed galactic super-structures (containing hundreds of billions of observed galaxies) into a 9000 light year diameter bubble?

Or, alternatively if they're not real and not at the distant that we measure them to be - did God paint 100 billion "moving pictures" of galaxies, make them rotate exactly the way they would if they were real, just so we could look at them and draw the wrong conclusions?

That would sound awfully like the deity messing around with us...

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?

How about taking a look?

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.

Curiously, many of these performed by the very people and institutions who claim to define 'sin'.

Everything I looked at regarding that was easily refuted.

Oh, easily! Right..........

Demonstration please?

Incidentally, since you're ok with measurements taken within the fishbowl (whatever that means...is Voyager 1 still in the fishbowl?)...that apply to our present state, as you've clearly stated, I don't see anything in the Higgs hypothesis that necessarily has to be beyond the scope of the present time and the current location, so I'm not sure why you object to it so vehemently. As you yourself said:

"You can play with your little terms on earth and near earth."

Yup, that's what we're doing. We're doing a lot more besides (because your ideas are thankfully false), but not necessarily in Higgs field mathematics, so your objection is curious. I'm beginning to suspect you might just possibly be a troll.

Now if you have not the guts to put some on the table...fine.

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"

Was that it's natural form? You tell me. Not going to help you on that one. Let's see if you can figure it out, all by yourself.

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!?

Well, since you said that this mathematics was refuted everywhere, it doesn't really matter. Let's select Earth, so we remove your fishbowl objection. How about now?

Must be a gift, this stuff comes easy to me

Since you're demonstrating the reasoning ability of a child, I imagine it may have come naturally, yes; certainly not with any great scholarship.

 

[dad]

Who needs to be clear about what?

C is related to light. Get over it.

"Force" (in the physics sense) is a concept invented by physicists because it provides a good model for the way the physical universe behaves.

So we ought to remember to limit the meaning of forces to the fishbowl when talking to you. OK. I will try to remember.

The Higgs field is another concept invented by physicists because it provides a good model for the way the physical universe behaves.

No. Not really. No more than a child tossing a stone in the ocean wets the universe with the splash.

The math is more complicated in the case of the Higgs, but that just means you need to learn more math.

Nonsense. No need to even get into the crunching of numbers. All we need to do is look at what the numbers are supposed to represent!

Based on observing the far universe, we can safely conclude that particle physics does indeed behave the same over regions of tens of billions of light years, and that the Higgs field is part of a good model for that physics there as well as here.

Nonsense. Evidence..specifics?

 

[dad]

Not really, the only concept currently under discussion in this thread that exists in somebody's head is your idea that the laws of physics don't apply at a certain (not very big) distance from Earth.

Says you.

Why would we expect to see one there?

(If there was one, we'd have...problems. Big problems, depending on its size.)

We would not...because this is the real world. Your magic singularities are in your head.

Clear about what? You're the only confused person here. Show me an example of big bang cosmology that talks about an event horizon involved in the creation of the cosmos as we see it. Any outside citation of reasonable quality will do. There will be none, so if you feel like not bothering and ceding that you're confused about what an event horizon is that's equally fine.

"
The Singularity

At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The Limits of Physical Law

Newton and Einstein may have looked at the universe very differently, but they would have agreed on one thing: all physical laws are inherently bound up with a coherent fabric of space and time. At the singularity, though, the laws of physics, including General Relativity, break down. Enter the strange world of quantum gravity. In this bizzare realm in which space and time are broken apart, cause and effect cannot be unraveled. Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity.
Cosmic Censorship

It's no surprise that throughout his life Einstein rejected the possibility of singularities. So disturbing were the implications that, by the late 1960s, physicists conjectured that the universe forbade "naked singularities." After all, if a singularity were "naked," it could alter the whole universe unpredictably. All singularities within the universe must therefore be "clothed." But inside what? The event horizon, of course! Cosmic censorship is thus enforced. Not so, however, for that ultimate cosmic singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang."

Anatomy of A Black Hole

Apart from some fringe cosmologies which try and ignore the gravitational limits that exist in nature for a neutron star, the observed evidence supports their existence overwhelmingly - we have numerous examples.

Nonsense! You assume it all. Gravity out there as we here on earth know it, for example.

One or two - ah, perhaps that would maybe be a fluke, an anomaly.

Imagining many doesn't help you actually.

But depending on the standard of evidence you're asking for to constitute proof, then the number varies depending on that standard...dynamically proven (an extremely high standard of evidence), maybe a couple of dozen at this juncture.

Homepage for Jerome A. Orosz

If you use lower standards of evidence (ones where other options have been reasonably ruled out but the systems have not been dynamically measured yet, then thousands, potentially more.

Overruled. Your site talks about hotter...etc. You need to know distance....which means you need to know space.

How near?

Unless you know, who cares?

The Milky Way is observed to be approximately 110,000 light years in diameter. How are you proposing we fit the observed galactic super-structures (containing hundreds of billions of observed galaxies) into a 9000 light year diameter bubble?

False. Distance is out the window. Get over it. You do not know far space. Period.

Or, alternatively if they're not real and not at the distant that we measure them to be - did God paint 100 billion "moving pictures" of galaxies, make them rotate exactly the way they would if they were real, just so we could look at them and draw the wrong conclusions?

Imaginary distances can't be blamed on God.

Curiously, many of these performed by the very people and institutions who claim to define 'sin'.

Sin is no mystery is it?

Incidentally, since you're ok with measurements taken within the fishbowl (whatever that means...is Voyager 1 still in the fishbowl?)...that apply to our present state, as you've clearly stated, I don't see anything in the Higgs hypothesis that necessarily has to be beyond the scope of the present time and the current location, so I'm not sure why you object to it so vehemently. As you yourself said:

Probably.

"You can play with your little terms on earth and near earth."

Yup, that's what we're doing. We're doing a lot more besides (because your ideas are thankfully false), but not necessarily in Higgs field mathematics, so your objection is curious. I'm beginning to suspect you might just possibly be a troll.

Great, play with them on earth. Just do not claim they apply to the universe and beyond.

Was that it's natural form? You tell me. Not going to help you on that one. Let's see if you can figure it out, all by yourself.

I would say the natural form would be smelly.

Well, since you said that this mathematics was refuted everywhere, it doesn't really matter. Let's select Earth, so we remove your fishbowl objection. How about now?

You want to cook up a higgs field just on earth? OK..so what does it do, etc?

Since you're demonstrating the reasoning ability of a child, I imagine it may have come naturally, yes; certainly not with any great scholarship.

I must talk simply when dealing with concepts that are simply foolishness.

 

[Trogool]

Says you.

Says literally everyone but you. Even AV doesn't go with your bizarre past state fantasy last I heard.

 

[dad]

Says literally everyone but you. Even AV doesn't go with your bizarre past state fantasy last I heard.

Everyone? I would like to see you show ANYONE that can prove space and time are the same far away! It doesn't really matter what they assumed or thought or believed.

You think you will find a Christian that doesn't believe in heaven? How about you?

 

[Trogool]

Everyone? I would like to see you show ANYONE that can prove space and time are the same far away! It doesn't really matter what they assumed or thought or believed.

You think you will find a Christian that doesn't believe in heaven? How about you?

*yawns in boredom and hands dad notes from an introductory science class on the scientific method*

http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/06S.../100_lectures/Lecture01/100_Lect01_topics.pdf

 

[sfs]

C is related to light. Get over it.

No, light is related to c; so is everything else. Learn some physics.

So we ought to remember to limit the meaning of forces to the fishbowl when talking to you. OK. I will try to remember.

Who is this "we"? There's just you.

No. Not really. No more than a child tossing a stone in the ocean wets the universe with the splash.

Sorry, but the Higgs mechanism does provide a good model for observed data. Just because you don't understand either the data or the model doesn't mean physicists have to stop usingthem.

Nonsense. No need to even get into the crunching of numbers. All we need to do is look at what the numbers are supposed to represent!

The numbers represent observed data -- you know, stuff you know nothing about, but insist on talking about anyway. Things like the mass of the W and the Z.

Nonsense. Evidence..specifics?

Observation of distant stars and supernovae that behave exactly like local ones. More stuff you don't know or care about.

 

[mkatzwork]

The Singularity
snip big quote"

Thanks for showing a quote that proved my point precisely. Much appreciated. It's much easier to defeat you time and time again when you defeat yourself so readily!

Nonsense! You assume it all. Gravity out there as we here on earth know it, for example.

Well the 'marginally less accurate' version of our knowledge of gravity 'here on earth' just got a probe out of the solar system...so seems pretty accurate so far...the fishbowl grows bigger by the day!

(snip random comments missing and deliberately obfuscating the point)
False. Distance is out the window. Get over it. You do not know far space. Period. Imaginary distances can't be blamed on God.

Well, we can see it for starters. So, given that any one of the many billions of galaxies observable out there in the universe would take up a space bigger than the fishbowl, such that we can be sure even without measuring any kind of distance they are beyond the fishbowl (otherwise their gravitational effect would be measurable IN the fishbowl)...where does this leave you?

What do you think they are? Do you actually think God put moving pictures on the walls of the fishbowl that look - well gee, EXACTLY like what we should see if the universe was indeed billions of light years across, with galaxies galore?

Are you comfortable in your worldview with a deity that is, to put it bluntly, messing with you? You ascribe omnipotence to your deity then vastly curtail his creation. You have him alter the laws of physics to be able to perform his deeds, as if he cannot merely suspend or act in spite of them.

Bizarre.

Sin is no mystery is it?

Let's look to our Bibles...2 Thessalonians 2:7. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way"

So...yes, it's a mystery, according to your Bible.

Great, play with them on earth. Just do not claim they apply to the universe and beyond.

Beyond? Whoever claimed to know what was 'beyond' the universe?

I would say the natural form would be smelly.

Yeah - you're a troll. A very defeated troll.

You want to cook up a higgs field just on earth? OK..so what does it do, etc?

In brief, the hypothesis is a construct that gives rise to mass in gauge bosons. The hypothesis is being tested, and we know that there is a particle that looks a lot like we would expect the excitation of the Higgs Field to look like.

I must talk simply when dealing with concepts that are simply foolishness.

Your simplistic worldview demeans in the greatest possible way the very deity you claim to worship.