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)  

Views: 536

Replies to This Discussion

... such as the gravitational attraction between two galaxies.

Gravitation is by FAR the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The others are stronger by about ten to the 25th power.

 

Close up, yes.  At greater distances, not so much.

"At greater distances, not so much."

 

Gravity weakens by the square of the distance.

Twice the distance, one fourth as strong. Four times the distance, one sixteenth as strong.

Do you really think gravitation would change the directions of galaxies that are moving farther apart, along their radial lines, at really HIGH speeds?

 

Wouldn't know.  I'm not an astrophysicist.

 

One of the big objections I have with your statements is that every galaxy was heading out at absolute radial lines, relative to every other galaxy.  The interactions within the mass of the universe, early on before matter clumped into galaxies, would have spun things off into all kinds of directions, still mostly headed more-or-less outward, but at all sorts of angles.

Where has Lerner's work been refuted? Sure, everything from nothing trumps it.

Gravity? Cosmologists couldn't explain the formation of clumps of matter so that gravity could act. They invented the fiction we know as inflation. Where's the evidence for it? Not in their equations, which are but approximations. Try writing a differential equation that explains the gravitational attraction of just two bodies when their densities vary. Remember, the earth wobbles and your equations will have to account for the wobble and what causes it.

With the clumps moving away from the claimed singularity at hyper-enormous speeds, their changing direction to get onto collision courses would require hyper-enormous forces.

Do you accept the cosmologists' claims that both space and time began at the Bang? It's their take on the Xian story and has as much evidence supporting it.

Kaku? Several years ago he said on one of the science shows he emcees that plugging a point mass (another fiction) into Einstein's equations led to black holes.

Fiction begets fiction.

Universe's mass is not moving "away" from a certain spatial location - in the beginning, the energy density just corresponded to something we might call a point. During expansion the energy density became lower, mass was generated and started flying in random directions, which led to all kinds of clustering phenomena, such as galactic collisions.
Although this chap Stephen Hawkings has bet against it being found, I really think they ought to ask the opinion of the famous physicist, Stephen Hawking. *grin*

Seriously though, although the Higgs has not been found so far, we have not yet looked at the higher energies which the LHC will be getting to in the future.

 

Oops. : )   But in fairness, I recently was afflicted with vertical diplopia (IVth cranial nerve palsy), so don't pick on me.

 

So you're betting on Peter Higgs and not Hawking?  From an esthetic point of view the unification theory would be much more elegant if it had a grander bridge than an elusive particle.

has anyone here bothered to contact Kaku and ask HIM what the fuck he ment?

i mean isnt that the way we find things out by asking the person involved?

BTW the particle was originally called that "god damn" particle because of its elusiveness.

saw that on a panel discussion with neil degassi tyson and a host of others.

 

Very well said - and points out how sound, convincing theoretical arguements can become widely accepted dogma without any evidence.  This kind of theorizing has led us to quickly accept multiverses, parallel universes, nine, ten or eleven dimensions, wormholes, etc.  We will never get the chance to prove that they exist - nor ever see them.  But, of course, they will become part of the language and accepted as much as the "Big Bang." 

Except we've got these big spinnie thingies to bash stuff together and figure out how much of the mathematical model we've got constructed mirrors reality.  We're getting there with the tools.  Relativity was unproven for quite a while, too.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service