Higgs boson: so what?
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
45% | |||
|
34 votes
|
|
39% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
16% | |||
Three days ago the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) announced some data they actually gathered in December of last year. They found
a new subatomic particle, and they think they might at last have the
Higgs boson. The news has excited most laypeople and many scientists.
But no one seems able to say what the Higgs boson is, or what finding it
really means.
Higgs boson according to CERN
The staff of CERN announced their find at CERN’s offices in Geneva, Switzerland. They did not say that they had the Higgs boson, but only that they had something like it. Whatever they have is more than a blip on a tracing:
We observe in our data clear signs of a new particle, at the level of 5 sigma, in the mass region around 126 GeV.
“Five sigma,” in statistics, is almost an ironclad guarantee.
Scientists describe subatomic particles, not by their weight, but by
their energy; hence “126 GeV.” That makes it 126 times as heavy as a
proton, and the heaviest subatomic particle anyone has found so far.
The data come from two sets of experiments on the Large Hadron
Collider, the largest atom-smasher in the world. The names of those
experiments are ATLAS and CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid).
The Standard Model
A
section of the Large Hadron Collider. Photo: User “solarnu”
(Flickr.com); Creative Commons Attribution/Non-Derivative 2.0 Generic
License.
Why does the Higgs boson matter? Theoretical physicists try to explain all of physics in terms of certain fundamental particles of matter. They have a theory, the Standard Model of Particle Physics,
to explain how all the particles they have seen, work together and
combine. Protons, neutrons, and electrons can explain chemistry and
electricity. But much smaller particles make up each of these three.
Bosons are a special case. They each carry one of the elementary forces
of physics. Specifically, W and Z bosons carry the “weak force.”
Photons carry electromagnetism. “Gluons” carry the “strong force.” (The
Standard Model has no boson to carry gravity. A particle like that would
have no mass, and would travel at the speed of light.)
The problem: one type of particle is missing. That particle
is the Higgs boson. The W and Z bosons cannot exist without it. For that
matter, neither can anything else. The Higgs boson, according to this
theory, is the source of mass.
Higgs boson hype
The newspapers, magazines, and TV channels have played up the Higgs
boson for all it’s worth. More stunningly, several scientists, in and
out of CERN, seem almost giddy with their excitement. The National Post
(Canada) quotes two scientists at CERN talking about understanding “dark matter”
and even traveling at the speed of light. (If one could somehow “switch
off” the Higgs, then an object would weigh nothing and could easily
reach the speed of light and stay there.)
Just one catch: the Standard Model says nothing about dark matter, or
about canceling out the mass of the Higgs boson, or what that would do
to the larger object.
The Wall Street Journal broke from its usual level-headed policy. It carried this piece that called the Higgs boson “the spark that caused the Big Bang.”
The Los Angeles Times talked about US scientists being jealous of CERN. Why? Because CERN has the LHC, and Congress refused to build the Texas Superconducting Super-Collider.
The Daily Telegraph (London) interviewed Peter Higgs, who said forty years ago that such a particle must exist. Now that CERN has found it (maybe), even he admits: he has no idea what it’s for, or how to use it. At least he’s honest.
So What?
In fact, nothing in particle physics says, or implies, that without
the Higgs boson, the Big Bang could not happen. Then again, nothing says
that it could happen. This is another heavy particle, nothing more. And no matter what anyone says, the Higgs boson cannot prove anything about how the universe came about. No one can prove anything in science. One can only disprove something. CERN has shown one thing only: the Standard Model still holds. So far.
Thomas Fleming, in The Daily Mail (London), finally
gave the proper perspective. He scathingly accused the “press lords who
tell us what to think” of having a hidden goal. That goal: to make God
unnecessary. (He has a point. Lawrence Krauss, at the University of
Arizona, now calls the Higgs boson the “Godless particle.”) Nor does this stop with the quest for the Higgs boson:
The US government is actually spending billions upon
billions of dollars looking for extraterrestrial life forms, and why?
Because they think that the discovery of a virus on Mars will prove that
man is not special and there is no God. There must be a cheaper way,
some deity-destroying pill we could all take. I feel sure there is
government money for such a program.My biologist friends use to tell me that there is no mystery about
how life originated on earth. After all, given infinite time and an
infinite variety of circumstances,anything can happen. This is an
insincere argument, since it is precisely the scientists who have
limited both the time and the circumstances in which life might have
originated. Nobel laureate Francis Crick was honest enough to see the
thing was impossible, which is why he put forward the hypothesis that
life is alien on earth, having arrived by way of spores from outer
space. This conveniently gets us back to infinite time and
circumstances, but it is really a confession of failure.
Right again, though Fleming oversimplified the case. Francis Crick did give up on abiogenesis (life from non-life). He knew that DNA had far too much information for that. So he and Leslie H. Orgel came up with directed panspermia.
According to them, aliens, either in this Galaxy or in another, fired a
brace of missiles, each laden with bacteria and blue-green algae, in
all directions from their dying home world. One crashed on Earth, and we
are the by-product. That concept found its way into two popular
science-fiction franchises on television:
- Star Trek: The Next Generation (“The Progenitors”)
- Babylon Five (“The Old Ones”)
Fleming ends by quoting William Blake, who threw back in their faces the mockery of François Arouet de Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and of even earlier philosophers:
The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton’s Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright
So all right. What does the Higgs boson matter?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/06...
Top Opinion
-
SK-LIBERTY OVER EQUALITY 2012/07/07 18:24:57Meh! Just another subatomic particle.
+9Even if they do find something they still have to prove how it came into existence and no evilutionist has proven anything of the sort in it's fairy tale science. Still asking the question: How does something come from nothing without a Maker??????
Except the discovery of the boson doesn't prove anything one way or the other about God. It proves the Standard Model of particle physics is correct (so far) and shows how mass is conferred on other particles via the Higgs field. God really has nothing to do with what this discovery is about.
It is a very cool discovery, though, and may possibly open the door at last to what physicists have long been waiting for: so-called 'new physics.' The theory of Supersymmetry, proposed as an extension of our knowledge of physics, is waiting in the wings now, to either be discounted, confirmed, or modified. The Higgs boson is a physics milestone.
https://images.nonexiste.net/...
It does not prove or disprove God nor was that the scientist intention, they are just taking things apart to figure out how things work.
Thank GOD, I don't need any proof.
That's the only reason.
A lot of folks believe religion and science cannot co-exist. It's hogwash. The Jesuits are some of the most pre-eminent scientists. As are religious of many sect. Science and religion are not enemies. They can thrive together.
Then you obviously haven't read through this thread.
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...
But if it makes you feel better and all superior - go for it.
"There is now a scientific verification of a mechanism that does it." what is verification if not proof? Scientific proof is indeed 'verification'. Verification is more formal 'proof'. So I don't understand your contradiction.
If you do not have an atheist agenda, as in disdaining all of those that believe in God - fine and dandy.
If you wish to score points off others - mainly believers - and use this exactly to do so - well, count me out.
It's very easy.
I don't try and change folks one way or the other.
So, in conclusion, I'm not trying to "change folks one way or the other", as you stated it, but just provide logical education to those who are willing to learn about actual facts instead of clinging to the superstitions that they were brought up to believe.
IF IF IF IF IF
"IF you do not have an atheist agenda, as in disdaining all of those that believe in God - fine and dandy.
IF you wish to score points off others - mainly believers - and use this exactly to do so - well, count me out. "
And yet - you obviously disdain folks - calling their beliefs superstitions. You make me tired. You can't see your own words for what they are. You definitely are of the 'score points off others' ilk.
You've succeeded in proving my first impression correct, no matter how refreshing I would have found being wrong. You do not understand there is room in science for God, and/or for honest respect for another's belief. The bottom line is that you don't know. NO ONE DOES. Some of the most preeminent minds in science have been religious. The Jesuits and the Catholic Church embrace science. But that doesn't 'fit' the atheist agenda does it? Much easier and more profound and ego-boosting to an evangelical atheist to call folks names and disdain their beliefs calling said beliefs 'superstitions'.
This is really pointless. SSDD. I won't engage you further. Too typically boring and senseless.
To continue, I am trying to understand your insistance upon the use of the word "IF". I went back to re-read the previous postings so I could reply to you in as sensible manner as we scientists can towards ideas that most people were raised to believe without firm confirmation. I do not see anywhere in my posts above where I had
disdained people who cling to their superstitious beliefs. I only continue to adhere to those facts about the Universe which we scientists have been able to confirm as actual reality, so far. There is so much more to be discovered, and we are fully willing to accept that which we observe of our reality as we proceed through the discovery process. If "GOD" wants to knock us scientists upon the side of our heads during this endeavor, he has had ample opportunity to do so within the past couple of centuries of scientific progress. If he would only hurry up that proc...
To continue, I am trying to understand your insistance upon the use of the word "IF". I went back to re-read the previous postings so I could reply to you in as sensible manner as we scientists can towards ideas that most people were raised to believe without firm confirmation. I do not see anywhere in my posts above where I had
disdained people who cling to their superstitious beliefs. I only continue to adhere to those facts about the Universe which we scientists have been able to confirm as actual reality, so far. There is so much more to be discovered, and we are fully willing to accept that which we observe of our reality as we proceed through the discovery process. If "GOD" wants to knock us scientists upon the side of our heads during this endeavor, he has had ample opportunity to do so within the past couple of centuries of scientific progress. If he would only hurry up that process, we would all very much appreciate it!! Otherwise, the "god" concept is still relegated to the realm of manmade concepts (were you ever exposed to previous mythologies, e.g., Greek, Roman, Norse, etc.? I was, during my younger, more impressionable years0.
its about as important as the discovery of the neutron, electron or proton.
The CERN Experiment shows that something can envolve from nothing!
2 Protons ( part of an atom) collide at near speed of light and generate an explosion that basically generates a energy field with similar magnetic fields as our entire universe.
The glue that holds all together, similar to water, for creatures and objects..
Without it - there would be no existence.
To be absolutely sure that physicists made this true new discovery, rather than simply seen a fluke, physicists wait for enough data so that their statistics reach a level called 5 sigma, meaning that there is only a one in 3.5 million chance the signal isn't real.
Nothing to do with god or religion. Its pure science. Future calculations may have less of an unknown, or less variations for any explanation, if something is different then it really is.
Talk about fantasy.
**Also remember this: Just like any other branch of work, scientists MUST substantiate (or give validity) to the money they are given to do research. And it's not like scientists just have some "Golden Code of Ethics" that no one else has. They are just like everyone else and have a distinct tendency to fabricate results in order to lend credence to their cause. I'm not saying that is what they have done in this instance with the Higgs boson, but it happens ALL the time.