The Higgs boson, the Higgs, the God Particle is the hypothetical particle believed to give matter it's mass. Proposed by Peter Higgs and other physicists it has been the object of search at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). After running the LHC continually for five months, "CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored...the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibilty with a 95% probability."
Although there is still a 5% chance that it may still be found in this range (the search will continue until the end of the year), and the lower ranges have been explored by smaller colliders, it is possible that the Higgs does not exist. And this would be a blow to the unification theory of electromagnetic and weak forces and how the universe came into being.
I don't know why, but I was disappointed at the news. But then I thought, what does it really matter? What would have been accomplished that would have had a positive impact on humanity? Are all the billions that have spent on this project spent simply to satisfy the curiosty of the physicists - or is there something more?
I believe that pure, undirected research, is important - but this search makes me hesitate.
(Scientific American, Guest Blog by Amir Aczel)
His paper does seem to imply that something was found, but his enthusiasm made things a bit confusing.
"Are all the billions that have spent on this [Higgs boson] project spent simply to satisfy the curiosity of the physicists - or is there something more?"
If spent to satisfy physicists' curiosity, don't tell the Tea Party Repubs. They know their god did it and will want to cut the funding.
Something more? For a good read, try Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened. He said LeMaitre, a Catholic priest who studied math, started the creation from nothing story, which a later astronomer ridiculed by calling it the Big Bang. The name stuck.
The Big Bang story (with later fixes: inflation, dark energy, dark mass) requires the entire mass of the universe to have been concentrated in a point smaller than the head of a pin. It requires a similarly fantastical claim that both space and time began then. It has similarities to Ptolemy's idea of planets moving in circular paths around the earth--needing one explanation after another to silence the people who were pointing out differences between the concept and the measurements.
A bright school child can see a flaw. If the universe's mass is moving away from where the Bang allegedly took place (visualize the spokes on a bicycle wheel but in three dimensions), what forces caused the galaxies to change their directions and/or their velocities so much that they (the galaxies) collide?
Lerner's explanation (as I understand it, a universe of plasma with on-going supernovas) makes more sense. It also doesn't depend on a mathematics whose equations can only approximate reality.
"...two galaxies moving in approximately parallel lines...."
Joseph. not approximately parallel lines. Radial lines, like the spokes on a bicycle wheel but in three dimensions. The Bang would result in galaxies moving away from each other. Forces that could change the directions of two galaxies to put them on a collision course would have to be enormous.